





| 


A 
A 
0 
0 
0 
4 
4 
4 
4 
6 
0 
0 





California 
egional 











ἢ Γ' ae Ξ — yl | 
|| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA || 
| LOS ANGELES | 



































































































































ἣν <3) 
Fi Pir: 
" ΚΕΝ ΤᾺ 4 
᾿ Με ‘ 
ee εἶ Ὑ 
4 Yobe 
by 3 a 
gu 
Vs 
\ mis 
ier 
j 
i] a 
eA Ὁ 
π᾿ ‘ ee 
Ἰ ΑΝ 
hs Υ 
Ys 
W 
se ͵ 









Digitized by the Internet Aichivels ν 







in 2008 with funding mom ᾿ 
Microsoft Corporation | ἧς 











“ 








The Spurious Speeches in the 
Lysianic Corpus 


A Dissertation 


PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF BRYN MAWR COLLEGE IN PARTIAL 
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


ANGELA C. DARKOW 


BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA 
MARCH, 1917 


COPYRIGHT, 1917, BY ANGELA C. DARKOW 


The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. 


. 
) 


| 


LIST OF REFERENCES. 


For the sake of brevity, I give the following list of works to 
which reference is constantly made. Other citations are made 
in full where occasion arises. All citations are made in the 
chronological order of the editions used, except in cases of 
recognized dependence such as that of Jebb upon Blass, Attische 
Beredsamkeit. 


Adams, C. D., Lysias, Selected Speeches, New York, 1905. 

Albrecht, E., De Lysiae oratione vigesima, Berlin, 1878. 

Bake, J., Scholica Hypomnemata, Leyden, 1837 ff. 

Baur, F., Die erhaltenen Reden des Lysias, Stuttgart, 1868 ff. 

Benseler, G. E., De hiatu in oratoribus Atticis, Freiberg, 1841. 

Bergk, T., Griechische Litteraturgeschichte IV, Berlin, 1887. 

Bernhardy, G., Wissentschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache, 
Berlin, 1820. 

Blass, F. W., Attische Beredsamkeit I’, Leipzig, 1887. 

Bockh, P. A., Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener*, Berlin, 1886. 

Bremi, J. H., Lysiae et Aeschinis orationes selectae, Erfurt, 1826. 

Bruns, I., Litterarisches Portrat, Berlin, 1806. 

Biichle, A., Lysias’ Rede gegen Philon, Durlach, 1893. 

Bursian’s Jahresbericht CX XXIII (1907), 1 ff. 

Carel, G., De Lysiae iudicali sermone sententiae veterum, Halle, 1874. 

Christ, W. von, Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur*, Miinchen, 
1905. 

Cosattini, A., l’epitafio di Lisia e la sua autenticita, Studi italiani di 
filol. class. VII (1890), 1 ff. 

Croiset, M. et A., Histoire de la Littérature Grecque IV’, Paris, 1900. 

Dobree, P. P., Adversaria I, Cambridge, 1831. 

Eckert, C. H. L., De epitaphio Lysiae oratori falso tributo, Berlin, 1868. 

Falk, A., Die Reden des Lysias, Breslau, 1843. 

Francken, C. M., Commentationes Lysiacae, Utrecht, 1865. 

Frankel, F. K., De oratione pro Polystrato habita, Berlin, 1860. 

Franz, J., Lysiae Orationes, Stuttgart, 1831. 

Frohberger, G. A., Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias, Leipzig, 1866 ff. 

Gebauer, G., Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias, Frohberger’, Leipzig, 
1880. 

Gevers, G., Disputationis de Lysiae epitaphii auctore, caput alterum, 
Gottingen, 1839. 


2 KLLOD 
GC SOOKE 


4 LIST OF REFERENCES 


Gleiniger, T., Hermes IX (1875), 150 ff. 

Grote, G., History of Greece’, London, 18609 f. 

Giilde, O. R. J., Quaestiones de Lysiae oratione in Nicomachum, 
Berlin, 1882. 

Halbertsma, T., Lectiones Lysiacae, Utrecht, 1868. 

_Hallensleben, H., De orationis, quae inter Lysiacas fertur octava, 
ratione et tempore commentatio, Arnstadt, 1887. 

Hamaker, H. A., Quaestiones de nonnullis Lysiae orationibus, London, 
1843. 

Hanisch, E., Lysiae Amatorius, Leipzig, 1827. 

Hecker, A., De oratione in Eratosthenem trigintavirum Lysiae falso 
tributa, Leyden, 1847. 

Hentschel, J. M., Quaestionum de Lysiae oratione Epicratea (XX VII) 
capita duo, Meissen, 1874. 

Herrmann, K., Zur Echtheitsfrage von Lysias X Rede und tiber das 
Verhaltniss zwischen Rede X und XI, Hannover, 1878. 

Herwerden, H. van, Lysiae Orationes, London, 1800. 

Hoffmeister, De quibusdam locis XX orationis Lysiacae, Stargard, 
1872. 

Hofmeister, A., Uber Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Iota Demon- 
strativum bei den attischen Rednern, Halle, 1877. 

Holscher, C. G. L., De Lysia, Berlin, 1837. 

Hoyer, R., Alkibiades Vater und Sohn in der Rhetorenschule, Kreuz- 
nach, 1887. 

Hude, K. T., Lysiae Orationes, Oxford, 1913. 

ἐπ τ ρος, Μ. H., Uber die Offentlichen und Privat-schiedsrich- 
ter Diaeteten in Athen und Process vor Denselben, Jena, 1812. 

Huss, M. W., De Lysiae contra Philonem oratione, Upsala, 1868. 

Jebb, Sir R., Attic Orators I, London, 1876. 

Jowett, B., The Dialogues of Plato I*, Oxford, 1892. 

Kayser, L., Philologus XXV (1867), 321 ff. 

Keller, H., Die Rechtsfrage in Lysias’ neunte Rede, Niirnberg, 1894. 

Landweer, G. J., De epitaphio qui Lysiae vulgo tribuitur, Groningen, 
1870. 

Mahaffy, J. P., History of Classical Greek Literature 11, New York, 
1880. 

Markland, J., in Reiske, Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. 

Motschmann, W., Die Charaktere bei Lysias, Miinchen, 1905. 

Miller, F. A., Observationes de elocutione Lysiae I, Halle, 1877. 

Miller, O., Geschichte der Grieschischen Litteratur II’, Breslau, 1857. 

Nitzsche, R., Uber die griechischen Grabreden der klassischen Zeit 
I, Altenburg, 1901. 

Norden, E., Antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, 1808. 





LIST OF REFERENCES 5 


Nowack, F., Leipziger Studien XII (1800), 1 ff 

Pabst, O. R., De orationis ὑπὲρ τοῦ στρατιώτου quas inter Lysiacas 
tradita est causa, authentia, integritate, Leipzig, 1&8go. 

Parow, H., De orationis quae inter Lysiacas locum obtinet vicesimum, 
Halle, 1870. 

Pertz, C. A., Quaestionum Lysiacarum caput secundum, Clausthal, 
1862. 

Pohl, A., De oratione pro Polystrato Lysiaca, Strassburg, 1881. 

Polak, H. J.. Mnem. XXXI (1903), 157 ff. 

Pretzsch, B., De vita Lysiae oratoris temporibus definiendis, Halle, 
1881. 

Rauchenstein, R., Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias, Fuhr”, Berlin, 1886. 

Reinhardt, C., De Isocratis aemulis, Bonn, 1873. 

Reiske, J. J., Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. 

Rogholt, L. P., Ps. Lysias oratio contra Andocidem, Groningen, 1893. 

Sachse, E. G., Quaestionum Lysiacarum specimen, Halle, 1873. 

Scheibe, K. F., Jahn’s Jahrb. XX XI (1841), 355 ff. 

Schdll, R., Quaestiones fiscales iuris attici ex Lysiae orationibus 
illustratae, Berlin, 1873. 

Schémann, G. F., Griechische Altertiimer I*°, Berlin, 1871. 

Siegfried, E., De multa quae ἐπιβολή dicitur, Berlin, 1876. 

Sittl, K., Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur I], Miinchen, 1884. 

Sluiter, J. O., Lectiones Andocideae, ed. Schiller, Leipzig, 1834. 

Spengel, L., συναγωγὴ τεχνῶν, Stuttgart, 1828. 

Stutzer, E.. Hermes XIV (1879), 400 ff. 

Taylor, J., in Reiske, Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. 

Teichmiuller, G., Litterarische Fehden, Breslau, 1884. 

Thalheim, T. F., Lysiae Orationes, Leipzig, 1901. 

Thomaschik, P., De Lysiae epitaphii authentia verisimili, Breslau, 
1887. 

Thompson, W. H., The Phaedrus of Plato, London, 1868. 

Vahlen, J., Uber die Rede des Lysias in Platos Phaedrus, Sitzungsber. 
der Akad. zu Berlin, 1903, II, 788 ff. 

Vogel, F., Analecta I aus griechischen Schriftstellern, Fiirth, ΙΟΟῚ, 
33 ff. 

Wagener, R., De infinitivo apud oratores atticos cum articulo coni- 
uncto, Schwerin, 1884. 

Weber, H. H., De Lysiae quae fertur contra Andocidem oratione 
(V1), Leipzig, 1900. 

Weidner, A. C., Lysiae Orationes Selectae, Leipzig, 1888. 

Weineck, A., Das Geburtsjahr des Lysias und die sich daran knup- 
fenden Fragen, Mitau, 1880. 

Weinstock, H., De erotico Lysiaco, Westfalen, 1912. 


6 LIST OF REFERENCES 


Westermann, A., Lysiae Orationes, Leipzig, 1854. 

Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, U. von, Aristoteles und Athen, Berlin, 1893. 

Wolff, E., Quae ratio intercedat inter Lysiae epitaphium et Isocratis 
panegyricum, Berlin, 1895. 

Worpel, G., De Lysiae oratione ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου quaestiones, Leip- 
zig, I9QOI. 

Zutt, Die Rede des Andokides περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων und die Rede des 
Lysias κατ᾽ ᾿Ανδοκίδου I, Leipzig, 1801. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The following dissertation on “ The Spurious Speeches in 
the Lysianic Corpus ” is the outcome of an investigation of the 
essential characteristics of Lysias’ work. Lysias’ renown as a 
master of ethopoiia led me first to direct my attention to his 
methods of presentation of character. Here at the outset, since 
Lysias in this respect works in low relief, as does Sophocles 
in tragedy, a trained perception is needed to grasp the writer’s 
delicacy of touch, and one may not be dogmatic. Furthermore, 
in prose, where no stage directions can be indicated through 
vagaries of metre, and characters cannot be brought out by 
means of dialogue, the reader must supply the make-up, setting 
and role. Isocrates V. 26 mentions the necessity of reading 
ethos into written speeches, and, indeed, since prose is the more 
readily subjective vehicle, it is not strange to find Lysias’ tricks 
of thought and phrase recurring in the mouths of various 
characters. 

I considered the speeches generally accounted spurious in the 
light of this investigation of ethopoiia, and some of them, 
notably VI, VIII, IX, X, XXIV, I found by no means lacking 
in this quality. I then turned to an examination of the grounds 
upon which so-called spurious speeches have been rejected, and 
found that in the majority of cases the final objection was un- 
suitability for delivery in the law court. 

It was necessary, therefore, to investigate the position of 
logography in general, and that of Lysias in particular, since 
as my work advanced, it seemed to me certain that the criterion 
of applicability to actual pleading is a false one. The con- 
temporary evidence, at least, does not point to Lysias as a 
logographer in the sense of one who wrote speeches for clients 
touseincourt. Yet this suggestion is so subversive of tradition, 
and must rest so largely on negative argument, that I have 
decided to subject to detailed examination the evidence in 


8 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


Lysias’ case only; leaving for a future study the position of 
the orators generally in this respect, and what seems to me the 
erroneous assumption that the extant work of the Greek orators 
is the result of writing speeches for clients to deliver in court 
or assembly. 

Of four hundred and twenty-five speeches attributed to 
Lysias in antiquity, only two hundred and thirty <three> were 
considered genuine by Dionysius and Caecilius.* One hundred 
and seventy-two are known to us by name ;* of these, thirty-one 
survive more or less intact, and parts of three others are quoted 
by Dionysius. Of the thirty-one, six* are cited with some 
reservation by Harpocration, and five others * without any sus- 
picion of their authenticity. Of the value of Harpocration’s 
εἰ γνήσιος, the form usually taken by his reservation, we are 
unable to judge. We do not even know whether he based it 
upon the judgment of his predecessors, or upon a criterion of 
his own. Photius* mentions as a radical scholar a certain 
Paulus of Mysia * who through his rejections deprived posterity 
of many genuine speeches of Lysias. If ancient scholars took 
such liberties with the text,—and it is due in part at least to 
their excisions, that of four hundred and twenty-five speeches 
once attributed to Lysias, only thirty-one survive,—it appears 
that the presence of a speech in the Lysianic corpus argues that 
the presumption of its genuineness is considerably increased. 

Dionysius, in his study of Lysias’ work, a study obviously 
undertaken from a purely literary point of view, made the ulti- 
mate criterion of the genuineness of his work so intangible a 
quality as xdprs,’ and yet this quality cannot, as he himself admits, 
be defined, but must be intuitively apprehended. The English 
word “charm” seems the best translation. Should this cri- 
terion be applied to all Lysias’ speeches? Certainly invective 
is not likely to possess to any high degree the quality of charm. 


* Ps. Plut. 836a = Photius cod. 262, 488b, 15. * See Blass, 357 ff. 
* Vi TS Bee enV, KX: 

‘I, II, VII, XI, XX, (V?). For V, see Blass, 362. 

*cod. 262. *See under VII. ‘10 ff. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 9 


It is on the ground of absence of this quality, that Dionysius 
rejected the two speeches for Iphicrates (frgg. XVIII and 
LXV), a rejection which after his manner he supports on the 
basis of chronological difficulties. Chronology would, indeed, 
seem to be the only fair and objective ground for rejection, if 
we had reasonably certain knowledge of dates. In spite of 
Dionysius’ rejection, we find the former of the two, πρὸς 
“Αρμόδιον περὶ ᾿Ιφικράτους δωρεῶν, (cited by Dionysius as περὶ τῆς 
Ἰφικράτους εἰκόνος), accepted as genuine by Paulus Germenus* 
and both of them by Ps. Plut., 8264. Aristeides XLIX, 
518 Dind., left the question of authorship undecided.” Aris- 
totle* cited sentences from both as spoken or written by 
Iphicrates, but his testimony is open to various interpretations, 
since he also quotes the Platonic Socrates as Socrates. 

Dionysius * further rejected a speech for Nicias (fr. XCIX) 
which had incurred the censure of Theophrastus for undue 
levity of language in a passage of appeal to pity. Theophrastus 
seems to have missed comprehension of Lysias’ ironic humour, 
and certainly Dionysius’ cutting of the knot "15 even less justifi- 
able than it is efficacious. Even if Lysias, speaking through 
Nicias, represented the general as we find him represented in 
Thucydides’ speeches, it is quite conceivable that he should have 
introduced, as a personal contribution, the solemn sort of 
‘levity ’ that lies purely in the rhyming of words. It is a solemn 
levity, for this is one of the rhetorical figures of the epitaphii, 
and the rhetoric still appeals in passages of the New Testament. 
Especially if the speech was, as seems probable, purely epi- 
deictic,* no ground for objection remains. Theophrastus’ 
objection assails the authenticity of Lysias’ speech no more 


"οἴ, Suidas under Παῦλος Γερμῖνος σοφιστής᾽ ὁ ypayas bre γε Λυσίου ἐστὶν 
ὁ περὶ τῆς ᾿Ιφικράτους δωρεᾶς, βίβλια β΄. 

* He even reported that Lysias was successful in both! This is merely 
a manner of appreciation of the merits of the speech. 

16 τίθει μὲν εἰ βούλει Λυσίου τὸν λόγον εἶναι, τίθει δ᾽ ᾿Ιφικράτους. 

4 Aristotle Rhet. II. 22. 6; 7;9; III. 10. ™ 14. 

13 ὅγι δὲ οὐκ ἔγραψε Λυσίας τὸν ὑπὲρ Νικίου λόγον... .. πολλοῖς πάνυ TEK- 
μηρίοις ἀποδεῖξαι δυνάμενος οὐκ ἔχω καιρὸν ἐν τῷ παρόντι λόγῳ. 

* Blass, 4471. See 448 for defenders of its genuineness. 


to SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


successfully than does Protagoras’ objection to the imperative 
in the opening lines of the Iliad cast doubts upon their 
genuineness. 

Modern scholars like those of ancient times have been active 
in their suspicion and rejection of Lysias’ speeches. Only six * 
of the thirty-one speeches remaining to us have not been 
attacked by either. Nor have recent scholars been constant in 
their valuation of the early critics: no suspicion, for instance, 
of Il and XX is recorded in antiquity, whereas they are rejected 
by most scholars of recent times. In no case, however, has 
Harpocration’s εἰ γνῆσιος failed to excite doubts in the mind of 
some recent investigator. 

The scholars of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth cen- 
turies were cautious about rejection. Gradually II, VI, VIII, 
IX, ΧΙ, XX, came to be regarded as almost certainly spurious, 
though of course not all scholars reject precisely the same 
speeches. Croiset ” for example refused to admit VI, VIII, IX, 
XV, XX, but did not mention II or XI; Hude, the latest editor 
of Lysias, though considering several of the speeches probably 
spurious, brackets only VIII and XI.” 

XI has been generally considered as epitome of X. It was 
Francken who first applied extensively to other speeches of 
Lysias the theory that they are epitomes. His example has been 
faithfully followed, and his method has been applied to various 
speeches. Many scholars have justly inveighed against it.” It 
is not only incapable of proof, but entirely unsatisfactory as a 
means of explaining difficulties. Furthermore, the insistence 
in Pl. Phaedr. 228d that Phaedrus shall read Lysias’ speech, 
and not give an epitome (ἐν κεφαλαίοις ἐφεξῆς δίειμι) may be in- 
tended to emphasize the fact that Lysias’ manner of composi- 
tion might lead to a confusion between epitome and original. 
ἐγὼ μὲν ixava... . ἐρώτα (234c) points to the unfinished nature 
of Lysias’ speeches, which (264c) are criticized as lacking head 
and tail. There seems therefore to be some recognized char- 


A, ΤΠ So ane OOD. GOI IVE 
*449,n. 1. ™“praef. ad fin. ™ See Nowack, 99 f. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS EE 


acteristic in Lysias’ work that might lend semblance to the possi- 
bility of any one speech being an epitome. 

On the ground of avoidance of hiatus, Benseler” rejected 
VIII outright; he did not consider the argument from hiatus 
sufficiently urgent to warrant the rejection of II, IX, XIV; 
X'VI, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXXII he esti- 
mated as “ dubitationi justae obnoxias”’. In no case, except in 
that of VIII, has his judgment commanded attention, and his 
results have been corrected by Blass.” 

Dionysius * following Aristotle,” divides oratory into three 
classes: dicanic, symboleutic, and epideictic, i. e. panegyric. 
Quintilian * makes the much needed distinction between enco- 
miastic and epideictic oratory and points out that all three kinds, 
dicanic, symboleutic, as well as encomiastic, are comprehended 
in epideixis. It is this wider use of the word epideixis, in the 
sense of literary production, that is the keynote and keystone 
of my dissertation. 

There seems to have existed in Athens in the late fifth and 
the fourth century,” a more or less clandestine practice of writ- 


πο Att, -337-5.. “τὸ: 

* cf. Rhet. I. 3.3. It is far from certain that Aristotle was the first to 
make this tripartite division. The text of Anaximenes rex. pnr., init. 
and again in 17, was changed by Spengel to secure conformity with 
Quintilian III. 4. This arbitrary emendation has not been unanimously 
accepted. cf. O. Navarre, Essai sur la Rhétorique Grecque avant 
Aristote, Paris, 1900, 335 ff., and references there given. According to 
Burgess, Epideictic Literature, Chicago, 1902, 97 ff., there are in Isocrates 
indications of “the triple division made so distinct and permanent by 
Aristotle ”. 

“III. 4.14, esp. “ ut causarum quidem tria genera sint, sed ea tum in 
negotiis, tum in obstentatione posita” the meaning of which is not made 
clear in the translation of Burgess (95), “ Though there are three 
kinds of oratory, in each of these a part is devoted to subject-matter and 
a part to display”. It seems reasonably clear in the light of the con- 
text that Quintilian meant to point out that although there were three 
divisions of oratory, each of the three included speeches actually used, 
as well as those written for display ( ἐπιδεικτικῶς). With this use of 
the word negotium, cf. its use in a not dissimilar connection in Am. 
Mar. XXX. 4. Hermogenes, =. ἰδ, II, 417 Sp., also designates Aristotle’s 
ἐπιδεικτικὸν γένος aS πανηγυρικὸς λόγος. 

Query: Quint. III. 4. 10 says, “ Isocrates in omni genere inesse laudem 
ac vituperationem existimavit ”. Can this be a misunderstanding or mis- 
translation of Isocrates’ use of τὸ ἐπιδεικτικόν in its wider sense? cf. 
Burgess, 97 ff. ™See Blass, 92. 


12 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


ing speeches for the use of others in the courts. Contemporary 
references to it are slight. Oddly enough, it is not commented 
upon in what is left to us of Old Comedy, though we know from 
Ps. Plut. 833c that Plato in his Peisander satirized Antiphon’s 
φιλαργυρίβ. Of direct contemporary evidence regarding Anti- 
phon, we have only the passage in Thucydides (VIII. 68) from 
which we may conclude that Antiphon was, in some sense, an 
advocate, but not with Blass, 92, n. 1, that ξυμβουλεύσασθαι may 
include written counsel, and that Antiphon was therefore a 
professional speechwright.” Cicero, Brut. 47, directly quotes 
from this passage in Thucydides. Quintilian, III. 1. 11, echoes 
Thucydides’ statement about the excellence of Antiphon’s Apo- 
logia, but it must be from some other source that he derived his 
“orationem primus omnium scripsit ”, unless by chance the 
οὐδενὸς δεύτερος in Thucydides gave rise to a misunderstanding. 
Ps. Plut. 832c quotes a tradition to the effect that Antiphon was 
the first to write speeches for the law courts at the request of 
citizens, thus ‘ improving’ on the notice in Quintilian. Hermo- 
genes, π. id. II. 415 Sp., contents himself with calling Antiphon 
ὅλως εὑρετὴς καὶ ἀρχηγὸς .... τοῦ τύπου τοῦ πολιτικοῦ. It is not 
until we reach Diodorus ap. Clem. Alex. Str. I. 365 and Philo- 
stratus, βίοι cod. 17, that we find combined the two notices kept 
rigidly apart in Ps. Plutarch—first, the tradition that Antiphon 
was first to write speeches for others, and second, that Plato 
satirized Antiphon’s φιλαργυρία. Ammianus Marcellinus XXX. 
4 brings up the rear with a repetition of the information dis- 
closed by Diodorus and Philostratus. 

A glance at these citations suffices to show the lateness of the 
final version of the story, and warrants serious doubts of its 


35 Wilamowitz, Philologische Untersuchungen, Berlin, 1880, I. 38, n. 
68, “...und was sind denn Antiphons tetralogien? rhetorische 
schaustiicke oder τόποι fiir den wirklichen gebrauch und behandlungen 
juristischer probleme?” He chooses the second alternative, and ex- 
pects to gain conviction by a citation of Plut. Per. 36 as evidence that 
the second tetralogy deals with an actual case. But there is no evidence 
in Plutarch that the accidental murder—if it ever occurred—was tried in 
court, and this is rather an instance of how an event—real or fictitious— 
may be made the basis of sophistic discussion in words or on paper. But 
it is noteworthy that even with his point of view, Wilamowitz does not 
claim that the tetralogy was destined for actual use in court. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 13 


accuracy. Not until the late second or the third century do we 
come upon the tradition that Antiphon wrote speeches for 
money, and then we find that it has probably arisen from a 
contaminatio of sources. 

The confusion among the various Antiphons even in the Ps. 
Plut. vita * would impose additional caution in the application 
of references to the orator. φιλαργυρία is a common thrust at 
Teiresias, and one Antiphon was a τερατοσκόπος (Diog. Laert. 
II. 46). 

Andocides, it is clear, never wrote for clients. Before we 
can consider Lysias, we must first notice the passages that 
throw light on the general practice of speech writing as a 
profession. 

Plato in the Euthydemus (289c) mentions λογοποιοί, makers 
of speeches, some of whom like the λυροποιοί, makers of lyres, 
are not always able to use the instrument they fashion. It 
is noticeable that the simile, if carried to a logical conclusion, 
implies that the λογοποιοί were unable to use the speeches from 
lack of oratorical ability.” Isocrates is an obvious instance in 
point, both from his own admissions and the suggestion of his 
father’s business in the simile. In 2806, λογοποιία is compared 
to sorcery. By its means, dicasts, ecclesiasts, and other bodies 
of men are beguiled and persuaded; λογοποιοί, therefore, may 
include public orators as well as private speechwrights. 

In the Laws, XI. 937e seq., Plato censures vehemently the 
practice of ξυνδικέα, a perversion of justice, masquerading under 
the name of τέχνη, which is rewarded by money. An alien con- 
victed of this offense is to be banished for life; a citizen, to be 
put to death.” 

* Blass, 93 f. 

* cf. Isocrates V. 81 and epist. I.9, for his inability to speak; also 
XV. 189 f. and XII. gf. 

25 δωρεὰν δ᾽ αὐτῆς εἶναι τῆς τέχνης Kal τῶν λόγων τῶν ἐκ τῆς τέχνης, ἂν 
ἀντιδωρῆταί τις χρήματα. λόγων I take to be not speeches in any specific 
cases, but sample speeches, indicating arguments which, though specious, 
would under certain conditions be effective; in other words λόγοι is 
practically equivalent to methods. It is possible that Quint. II. 15. 30, 
“et tum maxime scribere litigatoribus, quae illi pro se ipsi dicerent, erat 


moris, atque ita iuri, quo non licebat pro altero agere, fraus adhibe- 
batur”, depended for his information upon this passage in Plato, 


14 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


Isocrates, Antid. 2 and passim (cf. esp. 31, 37 f.), defended 
himself against the charge of Suoypadgia,” of which he had been 
accused by his enemies. One might as well accuse Pheidias, 
he complained, of being a doll-maker! Later, 41, he remarks 
that there are very many who are ready to prepare speeches for 
men engaged in lawsuits. Cicero, Brut. 48, says that Isocrates 
first wrote for others but afterwards abandoned the practice. 
In Dionysius, de Isocr. 18, we find mention of a dispute on this 
subject between Aphareus, an adopted son of Isocrates, and 
Aristotle, who is cited as advancing in proof of his point, that 
many δέσμαι, bundles, of Isocrates’ dicanic speeches were in the 
hands of the booksellers. On the testimony of Cephisodorus 
who wrote against Aristotle in defense of Isocrates, Dionysius 
concludes that he had written a few dicanic speeches. As a 
matter of fact, of the few private speeches that remain to us, 
XVI, XX, XXI are unsuited to delivery in a real case. It is 
possible that the actual point of dispute between Aphareus and 
Aristotle was the question whether Isocrates ever wrote speeches 
on dicanic subjects, for it would indeed be strange if Isocrates, 
at such pains to defend himself against an accusation, should 
leave incriminating evidence in the hands of booksellers, or 
refrain in the Antidosis from alluding to forgeries. Cicero 
following Aristotle, would uncritically adopt his point of view, 
for the later Greeks and the Romans omitted from considera- 
tion the possibility that speeches were written as literature, or 
at least as ‘ rhetorische Musterstiicke’. Isocrates took a ficti- 
tious legal background even for his Antidosis (cf. 6 f.).” We 
have still other references to the practice, in Anaximenes Rhet. 
ad Alex. 36, 38, and Theophrastus, Jebb-Sandys ed., 116, 1. 2, 
but as these refer to the end of the fourth century, and not to the 
canonical orators, mention of them is sufficient. 

We may now examine the evidence on which it is assumed 
that Lysias was a professional speechwright. Of contemporary 


* For δικογράφος see Pollux VIII. 24; Diog. Laert. VI. 115. 

* Burgess, 97, n. 2, “ Though but a small proportion of his (Isocrates’ ) 
speeches are epideictic in title or technically such in theme, all are of 
this class in reality.” 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 15 


criticism, fortunately, we have Plato’s Phaedrus, which through- 
out treats Lysias as a literary man. It is questionable whether 
Plato would have taken the trouble to criticize, from this 
point of view, a professional speechwright. The crucial word, 
λογογράφος, occurs however in 267c. 

Now the word λογογράφος originally meant prose writer, or 
more particularly chronicler, μυθογράφος. In this sense, it is 
used in Thue. I. 21. Aristotle in his Rhetoric uses the word 
three times (II. 11.7; 111. 7.7; 111. 12. 2), in each case with this 
meaning. In II. 11.7, it is contrasted with ποιητής, as repeatedly 
Aoyorows is contrasted with zomrns in Isocrates (cf. V. 109; 
XV. 137), while in the Phaedrus Lysias is judged as a ποιητῆς 
(=artist).“ Even in later times λογογράφος maintained its 
original sense, for Hermogenes, π. ἰδ, II. 405, 417 Sp., dis- 
tinguishes as representatives of the three classes of literature, 
i. 6. poetry, and spoken and written speeches (prose), ποιηταί, 
ῥήτορες, and λογογράφοι, and includes ἱστορία under the general 
sense of Aoyoypadia. 

We do find, however, λογογράφος used in a more restricted 
sense. Gaisford on Phaedr. 257c¢ quotes schol. Plat. 63, Aoyo- 
γράφους ἐκάλουν οἱ παλαιοὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ μισθῷ λόγους γράφοντας, Kat 
πιπράσκοντας αὐτοὺς εἰς δικαστήρια" ῥήτορας δὲ τοὺς δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν λέγοντας, 
In Lycurgus in Leocr. 138 (where the word is not actually 
used), and in Deinarchus in Demosth. 111, the reference is to 
συνήγοροι, who spoke in person on behalf of the defendant, but 
with the expressed imputation of doing so for money instead of 
on the conventional basis of friendship or relationship.” In 
Aeschines in Ctes. 173, and Demosthenes de falsa leg. 246, each 
orator calls the other λογογράφος, and Aeschines once again 
(adv. Tim. 94) uses the word in the sense of professional 
speechwright. (So in the Meidias, 191, Demosthenes pretends 
that Meidias accuses him of having prepared an elaborate 


* cf. 236d, 245a, 258d, 278e. 

* λογοποιεῖν in Dein. I. 32,35, and Dem. IV. 49, refers to the circula- 
tion of stories or speeches (pamphlets?) intended to influence public 
sentiment. 


τό SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


speech, or still more pointedly, of having received aid in his 
prosecution. Yet this speech was never used in court, and was 
probably never intended for delivery. ) Whether or not the 
word was in common use in that sense in the circle of Plato 
remains doubtful. Certainly the passage in the Phaedrus is the 
isolated instance of its use. 

Phaedrus in this passage remarks that some one slandering 
Lysias called him λογογράφος, and that Lysias would probably, 
therefore, give up writing altogether. Socrates answers, vol 
suppose you think that the man meant what he implied?” and 
Phaedrus continues to discourse upon the stigma incurred by 
leaving after one’s death any συγγράμματα, since they make one 
liable to the imputation of being a sophist. It seems as if in this 
case there were a play on the word. Phaedrus interprets it in 
the conventional meaning, littérateur.” Socrates seems to think 
that Lysias might have been, though obviously without justice, 
accused of writing speeches for money. In any case, the sug- 
gestion is dropped, and in 258c λογογράφος means writer of 
prose, as is definitely shown by the use of the verb συγγράφειν 
as an equivalent. 

There remains to be considered only the passage in Cicero, 
Brut. 48:—‘“. . . Lysiam primo profiteri solitum artem esse 
dicendi, deinde, quod Theodorus esset in arte subtilior, in ora- 
tionibus autem ieiunior, orationes eum scribere aliis coepisse, 
artem removisse ...”. If Cicero did, indeed, copy this notice 
from Aristotle, there remains the possibility that he interpreted 
mention of Lysias’ dicanic speeches to mean that Lysias wrote 
speeches for actual use, whereas to the Greeks the meaning of 
fictional speeches with dicanic background may have been clear 
without further explanation. 

There are, indeed, passages in Isocrates which prove con- 
clusively that in Greece in the time of Lysias, speeches were 
written on dicanic subjects yet not for delivery in court. Isoc- 
rates (XV. 26) in his pride at having written great panegyrics, 


* cf. Blass, 350, 1 3. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 17 


speaks with some scorn of other forms of writing and speaking : 
—‘ First of all, when a man intends to write or deliver speeches 
which shall bring him honour and fame, it is undeniable that he 
will abandon such subjects as take the wrong side, or are trivial, 
or deal with matters of private dispute, and that he will choose 
great, noble, philanthropic subjects that pertain to the common 
weal”. In V. 1, he uses the same expression, ὑπόθεσιν ποιῆσασθαι, 
for choice of subject. In IV. 11, he refers to those critics who 
fail to distinguish between speeches written as pieces of display 
and those written on subjects of private dispute, but in both 
cases his criticism is literary, and he regards both classes as 
literary productions. Finally, in XII. 1, there is a direct refer- 
ence to dicanic speeches written as models merely, to be studied 
by the younger generation if they wish to be successful in their 
lawsuits. 

I should suggest, therefore, that there is some probability 
that Lysias and indeed all the orators of the canon were not 
λογοποιοί in the sense of professional speechwrights. They 
were the real representatives of a τέχνη behind which all speech 
mongers sheltered themselves. The opponents of this theory 
must explain why these speeches—once they had served their 
use in court—were published, and how they could be published 
withimpunity. In the following detailed investigation of the so- 
called spurious speeches, I shall emphasize the characteristics 
that render the speech under consideration unfit for delivery in 
court. 


to 


18 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


1. 


II, ἐπιτάφιος τοῖς Κορινθίων βοηθοῖς, is repeatedly cited by the 
ancients without any doubt of its genuineness.. Among the 
moderns, it has been the subject of considerable controversy. 
Muret,’ Taylor,’ Markland,’ Schweighauser,” Schlegel,” Jacobs,’ 
Dahlmann,* Becker,’ Franz,” Hanisch,” Spengel,* Kriiger,” 
Westermann,” Stallbaum,” Hermann,” Benseler,* O. Miiller,” 


1For a list of testimonia, see LeBeau, 2 ff., and add schol. Dem. Epit. 
10. The passage in Aristotle, Rhet. III. 10 has been the source of much 
discussion. Did Aristotle quote from memory, as he quotes without 
the name of the author, or should one agree with Sauppe’s adoption of 
the conjecture ἐν Λαμίᾳ for ἐν Σαλαμῖνι Or, again, is the passage hope- 
lessly corrupt? Sauppe’s expedient assumes the spuriousness of Rhet. 
III. I should prefer to be conservative, and admit that Aristotle was 
quoting from memory. Lysias II. 60 refers to those who fell at Aegos- 
potamoi. Their death symbolizes the death of freedom. Yet in a 
sense one can understand that freedom died with her defenders at 
Salamis, since their successors were unable to champion her cause suc- 
cessfully. This, at least, could have been said after the end of the 
Peloponnesian War. It is possible also that some other author in an 
epitaphius may have used that expression, and Aristotle may therefore 
refer to another than the one before us. The metaphor, itself, must have 
been a commonplace. It is found also in Aesch. in Ctes. 211, and 
Lycurg. in Leocr. 50 (cf. Wendland, Hermes XXV (1890), 181, ἢ. 1, 
and 185f.). Therefore, Ar. Rhet. III. τὸ cannot be used as proof of 
the. genuineness of Lysias II. Diels, Abh. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. 1886, IV, 
5 ff., rejected Sauppe’s expedient, and admitted that Aristotle’s refer- 
ence could not be used to prove the genuineness of the Epitaphius. 
Wilamowitz, ib. 35 ff., thought that Aristotle quoted from the Epitaphius 
of Gorgias, from which 60 of the one under consideration was bor- 
rowed. Blass, 438, rejects this expedient and thinks that Aristotle simply 
made an error in quotation. 

*Var. Lect., XVII.2. *Lect: Lys, i236 tage 

Sad Herod. VII. 139. ° Wieland’s Att. Mus. I. 2, 260 ff. 

* Attika, Vorr. VII. 

*Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Geschichte, Altona, 1822, I. 21. 

ἢ Demosthenes als Staatsmann und Redner, 466; Demosth. Philippicae, 
XXXIV. 

1 ἐπίδειξις περὶ Λυσίου τοῦ ῥήτορος, Niirnberg, 1828, 12 ff. 4. 140. 

* ad Clinton, 105; Hist. Philol. Studien, Berlin, 1837, I. 102 f.; 232 ff. 

* Quaest. Demosth., Leipzig, 1837, II. 32 ff.; ed., XVI. 

*Praef. ad Platon. Menex., 14; Lysiaca ad illustrandas Phaedri 
Platonici origines, Leipzig, 1851, 15 f. 

** Geschichte und System der Platonischen Philosophie, Heidelberg, 
1839, 520; 678, n. 572. 

“184. He would not reject it upon the ground of the slight departure 
from Lysias’ use of hiatus, alone. 375 f. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 19 


Villemain,” Cafhaux,” Grote,” all accepted it as genuine. Schdn- 
born,” in 1833, had defended its authenticity. His argument 
from the connection between it and the Menexenus of Plato has 
been attacked by Lors,* though the latter did not reject the 
Epitaphius. LeBeau“ and Gevers ἡ also defended it at greater 
length. 

On the other hand, we find that it is rejected by Reiske,” 
Valckenar,” Wolff,” Sluiter,” Clinton,” Bernhardy,* Sauppe,” 
Dobree,” Meier,” Falk,” Scheibe,” Pertz,” Steinhart,” Hecker,” 
Kayser,” Scholl," Halbertsma,* F. A. Miiller, Hentschel,“ 
Hermann.” Dobree “ἡ and Holscher “ had previously advanced 
detailed arguments against the Epitaphius. 

I shall examine in greater detail only the work of those 
scholars who have played the most important part in the 
controversy. 

Dobree agreed with Valckenar that Lysias could not have 
delivered the Epitaphius. He further thought it unlikely that it 
was written for some one else to deliver, but admitted the possi- 
bility that it was a purely literary production. He based his 


* Essai sur I’Oraison Funébre (quoted by Caffiaux, 81 f.). 

*®L’Oraison Funébre, Valenciennes, 1861, 70 ff 

* Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates’, London, 1867, II, 256. 

#Uber das Verhaltniss in welchem Platon’s Menexenus zu dem 
Epitaphius des Lysias steht, Gruben, 1833, 25 ff. Stallbaum and LeBeau 
also used this argument. 

*Quae ratio inter Platonis Menexenum et Lysiae laudationem sive 
epitaphium intercedat disputatio, Trier, 1846. The same view is de- 
fended by Knoll, Sind Beziehungen zwischen dem Epitaphios im Mene- 
xenos und dem sog. Lysianischen nachzuweisen? Krems, 1873. 

* Allg. | Schulz. LX XVIII (1833) ; op. cit.; N. Jahrb. XCIII (1866), 

om “op, cit. 64. 

* Hemst. et Valck. Orat., 218, cited by Dobree, 8 f. 

* Euphem. Liter., Erfurdt. 1782, 34; ad Demosth. Leptinem, 363. 

—ier,. ™Fasti Hellenici, 269 Kriiger. “22, 43, 126, 310. 

ad Lycurg. 144; Nachr. d. Gott. Ges. d. Wiss., 1863, 73 ff.; Gott. 
gel. Anz., 1864, 824 ff. ™ 192; 195 ff. 

“Index Scholarum, Halle, 1837, fat.) ον. 

* ed.?, Leipzig, 1887, LXXIX. 13. ™ Vers. Platon., VI. 360, 374. 

et # Jahrb. f. Phil. LXXVII (1858), 373 ff. 

Peusio. ASV (1867), 166ff. “62, “2. “51, “4. 

“ Praelectio in Pseudo-Lysiae orationem funebrem, Cambridge, 1823 
(op. cit., 3 ff.). He quotes Victorius as considering II genuine. “ 47 ff. 


20 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


rejection on the points of contact with Isocrates’ Panegyric,” 
from which he deduced that the author of the Epitaphius 
was the borrower. In style, also, he thought the author had 
imitated Isocrates, and while realizing that we have no criterion 
for Lysias’ epideictic style, felt sure that it could not have been 
that of the Epitaphius. Holscher advanced, in support of this 
view, details of style, such as excessive use of μέν and δέ, of 
antitheses, and the accumulation of synonyms. 

Gevers emphasized the necessity of keeping absolutely dis- 
tinct the dicanic and epideictic styles, and answered Holscher’s 
arguments against genuineness by pointing out that the very 
peculiarities to which he took exception, are characteristic of 
epideixis, (in its restricted sense). 

LeBeau,” after citing the references of the ancients to the 
Epitaphius, among which he included Aristotle, Rhet. III. 10, 
answered the arguments that had been advanced against it, and 
attempted, though unsuccessfully, as I think, to prove that an- 
titheses are found in equally great numbers in Lysias’ other 
speeches. Between the Eroticus and the Epitaphius he pointed 
out definite resemblances, e. g. balance of clauses and periods, 
artificial order, purely verbal antitheses. He defended Lysias’ 
right to deliver the Epitaphius. He believed that Plato in the 
Menexenus wrote with direct reference to it, and regarded this 
as a proof of Lysianic authorship. Vomel™® was convinced by 
LeBeau. 

Sauppe had previously * based his rejection of the epitaphii 
that appear under the names of Demosthenes and Lysias, and 
also of the Menexenus, on the mention in them all of gymnastic 
contests on the occasion of the great public funerals of those 


“For a list of these passages, see Wolff, 17 ff. 

“op. cit. He quotes, as believing in genuineness, Auger and Belun 
de Ballu, Hist. de l’éloquence chez les Grecs I, 194. I have been unable 
to secure the original of LeBeau’s work. 

* Jahrb. f. Phil. LXXXVII (1863), 366 ff. He quotes, as rejecting 
the Epitaphius on pedagogic grounds, Classen in the preface to his third 
edition of Jacobs’ Attica. For another favourable review of LeBeau, 
cf. Litt. Centralblatt, 1863, 1141 f. by an anonymous writer. 

* Gott. Nachr., 1864, 199 ff. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 21 


who fell in war (Lys. Epit. 80; Dem. Epit. 36; Men. 2400). 
Because there is no mention of these games in Pericles’ funeral 
oration, he believed that the custom did not exist until the be- 
ginning of the third century. But Blass” and other scholars 
opposed this view, and Sauppe’s evidence is insufficient and his 
reasoning circuitous. Sauppe now opposed LeBeau’s argu- 
ments. First, he quoted Thuc. 11. 34, Isoc. IV. 74, and Dem. 
XVIII. 285 to prove that Lysias as a metic could not have 
delivered the Epitaphius. He thought that the peculiarities of 
style are not sufficiently explained by the epideictic genre, and 
believed that the author used Isocrates’ Panegyric. LeBeau ™ 
replied to Sauppe’s criticism, and tried to confirm his previous 
contention, namely that Aristotle cites from Lysias’ Epitaphius ; 
that Lysias could and did deliver it; that it was the source for 
passages in Isocrates’ Panegyric; and that Sauppe’s objections 
on the score of style are invalid. 

Eckert * saw that the Epitaphius could only have been written 
as a μελέτη, but thought that the impossibility of assigning it 
definitely to any one year of the Corinthian War, and the lack 
of definite historical facts about the war prove that the author 
was a late rhetor. The style of the piece confirmed him in this 
conclusion. 

Girard” and Perrot” maintained its authenticity, and attri- 
buted its peculiarities of style to the exigencies of that depart- 
ment of literature. 

Kliigmann * regarded the Epitaphius as genuine, and thought 
the Panegyric had been written in dependence upon it. Land- 
weer,” after going over the debated ground with some thorough- 
ness, admitted that spuriousness could not be absolutely proved ; 
still he urged against it lack of historical accuracy and the 
presence of a sophistic flavour. Furthermore, he thought it 


δ 441, n. 6. ™ Gott. Gel. Anz., 1864, 824 

* Jahrb. f. Phil. XCIII (1866), 808 ff. ἀπ: cit. 

“Sur l’authenticité de Yoraison funébre attribué a Lysias, Rev. Arch., 
1872, “Rev. des deux Mondes, 1871, 852; op. cit., 248. 

* Die Amazonen in der attischen Litteratur u. Kunst, Stuttgart, 1875, 
im. ”~ op. cit. 


22 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


probable that Lysias did not write epideictic pieces after the 
anarchy; but of this there is no proof. Gebauer™ rejected, 
though Frohberger™ had accepted it. 

Richter * attempted to show by a detailed investigation of the 
style of II that it could not be the work of Lysias. Erdmann“ 
rejected it, advancing as a new argument™ that in contrast to 
the funeral orations of Demosthenes, Thucydides, and Hyper- 
eides, (cf. Dion. Hal. ars rhet. VI. 2), the Lysianic epitaphius 
is devoted, in great part, to the praise of the πρόγονοι; whereas 
the praise of those who are to be interred is given only two 
paragraphs (6 and 7). This precludes, according to him, the 
possibility that Lysias was the author, and proves that it was 
written by a late rhetorician. However, one might answer that 
a late rhetorician, writing in imitation, would be unlikely to 
deviate so obviously from the norm. Reuss “ advanced as addi- 
tional proof of the author’s dependence on the Panegyric, 
parallels between 47 and Isocrates VII. 75, and between 32 and 
Isocrates VI. 100. Blass” pointed out the resemblance between 
47 and Evagoras 62, and suggested that both authors in such 
isolated cases might be imitating Gorgias. In any case, it 
seems to me, a repetition of a commonplace need not be due to 
conscious imitation. 

Albrecht “ in approval of Richter’s results, and Sittl * rejected 
the Epitaphius, as did Keil,” who thought that 2 was compiled 
from Thue. 11. 41. 4 and Isoc. IX. 62, and Buresch.” Blass ™ 
believed with LeBeau and the ancient critics” that the Epi- 
taphius was written before the Panegyric. He thought that the 
question of authorship could be settled only on grounds of style, 


7 πο DIG. Op. Cit. 

Ὁ De pseudolysiae epitaphii codicibus, Leipzig, 1881; Pseudolysiae 
oratio funebris, Leipzig, 1881. 

* Woch. f. klass. Philol. VI (1882), 1184 ff. 

* Rh. Mus. XXXVIII (1883), 148 ff. Philol. LII (1893), 615. 

“443, n.5. ™ Zeitschr. £. Gymn., XXXVI (1882), 337500 ae 

δ Analecta Isocratea, Prague, 1885, οὗ. Leip. Stud. IX (1886), 90. 

* 436 ff. In his first edition, 432, he had thought that the Panegyric 
was the original. 

Desks) Vita Isocr. 837 f.; Theon, 63 Sp.; Photius, cod. 260, 
1458. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 23 


and from a comparison of the style of the Epitaphius with that 
of the Olympiacus, concluded that Lysias could not be the 
author. Maass,* in defense of its genuineness, rejected this 
argument, and found in the strictly epideictic genre sufficient 
explanation of the style. Jebb“ thought it the work of a late 
rhetor who copied from Isocrates, and Hallensleben”™ and 
Bergk ™ also considered it spurious. 

Baur “ and Béckh™ thought the Epitaphius genuine and in- 
sisted that style should not be made a ground for rejection. 
Thomaschik™ saw in the Epitaphius an example of genuine 
Lysianic art, not differing from the norm in composition, style, 
figures, or choice of words. 

Weidner,” Pabst," and Nowack,” without new evidence, re- 
jected it. Wendland “ insisted that the Epitaphius is at least an 
early production, and Diimmler ™“ maintained that spuriousness 
had not been proved, and that the Panegyric is dependent upon 
it. Wolff © based his rejection upon the idea that the Epitaphius 
is, in part, imitation of the Panegyric, and found this imitation 
especially evident in 54-61 which seemed to him out of place 
while appropriate in the Panegyric, 103 f., 106,115 f. The other 
grounds of rejection, he admitted, are inconclusive, but this one, 
he considered, would sufficiently disprove Lysianic authorship. 
Cosattini ” defended at some length, but without advancing any 
new line of defence, the genuineness of II. Nitzsche” regarded 
arguments from style, and other objections to it as inadequate 
for proof, yet rejected it as being dependent upon the Panegyric. 
Thalheim ™ also agreed with Wolff that the author’s use of the 
Panegyric demonstrated that the Epitaphius is not by Lysias. 
Polak,” Christ,” Hiirth,” all rejected it. Burgess referred to it 


τ Deutsche Litztg., 1887, 1546 f. 

Soot. ἰῷ 354 f. 70 f. 

*Encyclopadie der Philologie! Leipzig, 1886, 212 f. 

foc. “6. “30. ™ 104. ™ Hermes XXV (1890), 181 ff. 

™ Hermes XXVII (1892), 282, n. 2. “op. cit. “op. cit. 

* op. cit. Chaillet, De orationibus, quae Athenibus in funeribus pub- 

licis habebantur, Leyden, 1891, has been inaccessible to me. 

= B, P. W. XVII (1807), 33; op. sit. XXXVI. 

” Mnem. XXIX (1901), 4341. 375 

"De Gregorii Nanzianzeni orationibus funebribus, Strassburg, 1907, 
13. 


24 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


as “ probably spurious”. Hude™ admitted the difference be- 
tween this and other Lysianic speeches, and promised a more 
detailed treatment in the future. 

To sum up: the grounds of suspicion that have been ad- 
vanced against the Epitaphius are its style, and its dependence 
upon the Panegyric. The question whether or not it could have 
been delivered by Lysias, or written by him to be delivered by 
some one else is no longer debated by scholars. No one would 
now attempt a defence of the Epitaphius except on the assump- 
tion that it is a literary effort. 

It has been repeatedly acknowledged that we have no ade- 
quate criterion by which to judge the style of the Epitaphius. 
Lysias’ epideictic style as seen in the Olympiacus is not neces- 
sarily his only epideictic manner, and unquestionably Gorgias’ 
Epitaphius set the fashion for all successive literary funeral 
orations. As for the parallel passages in the Epitaphius and 
the Panegyric, it is quite conceivable that they are drawn from 
one and the same source, possibly Gorgias’ Epitaphius, of which 
we have only the epilogue preserved (Diels, Vorsokratiker II, 
556 f.). Otherwise the question, which was written first, can 
only be answered subjectively, as may be seen from the varying 
opinions of scholars on this point. If ancient authorities were 
unanimous in rejecting the Epitaphius, as they are unanimous 
in their acceptance, it may safely be presumed that not one 
modern scholar would speak in its defence. The burden of 
proof, therefore, is with those who reject it, and it is quite fair 
to say that they have not proved their case. 

On the whole, decision in this case must be withheld. The 
peculiar quality of Lysias’ style in dicanic, or rather in epi- 
deictic-dicanic speeches would be quite inappropriate to the 
conventional epitaphius. Ancient evidence points to his having 
composed an epitaphius worthy of him; it would hardly be 
expected that Lysias in such a composition would not control his 
terseness, his inversions, his audacity. Even if the Epitaphius 
could have been written for another to deliver on a real occasion, 


S4OPs Clits Aya Oe 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 25 


the employment of ethos would hardly have been in place. The 
personal ethos is no longer appropriate ; there is substituted for 
it the ethos of the literary genre. So two criteria of genuine- 
ness, Lysianic quality of mind, as betrayed in his style, and 
ethos fail, in this case, of application. 


iN. 


Taylor* was the first to regard with suspicion IV, περὶ 
τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας, of which we find no mention in antiquity.’ 
He thought it a mere imitation of the preceding speech, πρὸς 
Σίμωνα, and, since then, other scholars have hesitated to pro- 
nounce on its genuineness. Reiske,’ however, found no reason 
for rejecting it. Jacobs,* followed by Bremi,’ considered it not 
Lysianic. Dobree® suggested the alternate possibilities of a 
spurious epitome, or a genuine epilogue. Falk * was the first to 
advance detailed arguments against the speech, in substantia- 
tion of Taylor’s point of view which Holscher * had found alto- 
gether untenable. Scheibe, at first,’ though finding differences 
between IV and other Lysianic speeches did not question its 
authenticity. Although he afterwards” agreed with Falk’s 
rejection, he seems finally, in his edition, to have accepted IV as 
genuine, though mutilated. Falk,” struck by the absence of 


* Taylor, 164, “Multis modis mihi videtur hanc declamatiuncula in 
umbra scholae μελετᾶσθαι, ad imaginem superioris orationis elaborata, 
cui deinde ob argumenti affinitatem in scriptis codd. ut fieri solet, per- 
petuo adhaesit ”. 

? Dobree, 198, pointed out the error made by Valesius (ad Harp. 
ἀπολαχεῖν), who identified 1V with a κατὰ Ποσειδίππου, cited by Suidas 
under διαλαχεῖν, recalling that this speech was written πρός τινα, not 
κατά τινος. So too, Holscher, 164. 

*184, “ Nil video, quare Lysiae abiudicare debeat haec oratio, quae 
ingenium eius respiret”’. 

*Animadyvy. in Ath., 262. 

* 444. Nowack, 102, misquoted Jacobs and Bremi as rejecting XXII. 

*198. ‘'s4f. °55. "263, answered by Blass, 585 ff. 

* Fleck. Jb. Suppl. Bd. I (1855/6), 301. “I. c. 


26 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


formal proem,” narrative and proof, and in particular, by the 
absence of the evidence referred to in 12,” declared that this 
could not be the main speech of the defendant. If, then, we 
consider it a δευτερολογία, yet we cannot, according to Falk, 
believe in its genuineness. For in that case we should be com- 
pelled to assume that both parties to a suit were in possession 
of each other’s speeches and arguments, in order to make it 
possible that Lysias could write this, and give it to his client 
before the trial. Therefore, since this is out of the question, a 
δευτερολογία is necessarily extemporaneous, and, therefore, not 
written by Lysias. Nor does the assumption that the beginning 
has been lost remedy matters; the lack of arrangement remains 
to be considered. Ultimately, it is upon Taylor’s argument that 
Falk based his proof of spuriousness, that is, upon the similarity 
in subject of III and IV, and the difference in the form and tone 
of the two. 

Now, while it seems impossible to deny the similarities be- 
tween III and IV," there is no reason why we should not have 
two speeches on the same subject, entailing some similarity in 
detail, nor why we should deduce spuriousness from the greater 
frankness and incoherence of IV. Both frankness and inco- 
herence belong to the realm of ethos. If Lysias wrote twice on 
the same theme, it is only natural to find some variation in treat- 
ment, and it is not just to ascribe intentional incoherence in a 
composition to inability to compose. III illustrates Lysias’ skill 
in arrangement ; IV, his cleverness in ethopoiia. 

Francken, overlooking the work of Falk,” and remarking that 
Taylor’s argument scarcely needed refutation, did not reject 


“For Lysias’ omission of a proem, see Dion. of Hal. de Lysia, 17, 
ἤδη δέ ποτε kal ἀπὸ μόνης ταύτης (i, 6, τῆς προθέσεως) ἤρξατο, Kai ἀπροοιμι- 
άστως ποτὲ εἰσέβαλε τὴν διήγησιν ἀρχὴν λαβών. 

“The τεκμήρια and μαρτύρια mentioned in 12 evidently refer to the 
circumstantial evidence that has just been given, and to the testimony 
that would have been elicited from the girl, had she been submitted to 
the βάσανος, though Blass 585, n. 2, gave a slightly different explanation. 

“An inadequate attempt is made by Blass, 586, n. 3. 

37, “Nemo postea (i.e. after Taylor) de auctore dubitavit”. 
Westermann, XVI, mentioned IV as generally rejected. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 27 


the speech outright,” but in any case assumed mutilation,” as 
did Parow.” 

Stutzer ” expressed his opinion that IV was an epitome, but 
did not fulfil his promise to prove this. Hofmeister” rejected 
it because the names of the plaintiff and defendant are not 
given, and because he failed to grasp their rank in life. 
Nowack,” who accepted IV, justly characterized Hofmeister’s 
rejection as rash. 

Blass * did not hesitate to ascribe IV to Lysias, but thought 
either that the first part had been mutilated, (Sittl* believed 
that the beginning had been lost), or with Sauppe,” that it is a 
deuterology. 

Blass refuted Falk’s arguments from lack of arrangement, 
but left unanswered the significant observation that a logog- 
rapher could not write a δευτερολογία without an acquaintance 
with the preceding speech made by the opponent; therefore, 
since writing speeches for both plaintiff and defendant was a 
highly exceptional practice,” it is obvious, unless we insist upon 
the spuriousness of all δευτερολογίαι, that a speech such as the 
one before us was written either as a mere παίγνιον, or as a 
model δευτερολογία, being in neither case designed for actual 
use in the courts.” The absence of all proper names would point 
to this conclusion. 

It is necessary, for the sake of completeness, to mention 
finally the opinions of Jebb* and Baur,” the former in favour 
of the genuineness of IV, the latter adopting Falk’s arguments 
against it; as neither of these, however, has contributed any- 


* 937, “Dubia, utique dxépados; fortasse est exercitatio rhetorica”. 

* As Hamaker, 4, had already done, followed by Scheibe, Vindiciae 
Lysiacae, Leipzig, 1845, praef., X. 

ΝΠ nt. ~23. “roo. ™583ff. 7152. “ed. Tur. adn. 

* cf. Egger, Si les Athéniens ont connu la Profession d’Avocat, Paris, 
1860, 14 f. 

*It is only a logical consequence of the question raised by Falk as to 
the possibility of genuineness of δευτερολογίαι to deny the possibility of 
genuineness of the mpwrodoyla on the defense, itself an answer to the 
mpwrodoyia of the prosecution. This is another sign-post pointing to 
the general conclusion, that speech writing, as indulged in by Lysias, was 
par excellence a literary pursuit. “280f. ™ 107. 


28 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


thing new to the discussion, this bare mention of their opinions 
suffices.” With the fall of Falk’s arguments, fall all objections 
to the genuineness of IV. 


# Weinstock, 46, bracketed IV. 


Ve 


The fifth speech, ὑπὲρ Καλλίου, perhaps because of its frag- 
mentary condition, has all but escaped adverse criticism. 
Francken, however, mentions it a little dubiously, as a “ parvum 
fragmentum quod Lysiae esse potest’. This does not amount 
to rejection, and is too intangible for argument. 


5.22}. 


VE. 

VI, κατ᾽ ᾿Ανδοκίδου ἀσεβείας, is cited three times by Harpo- 
cration, twice with the addition of εἰ γνήσιος. Modern scholars 
have almost universally rejected this speech. Of them Ruhn- 
ken ἢ was the first to declare it spurious, basing his rejection on 
supposed ignorance of Andocides’ history and on contradictions 
within the speech.’ This judgment was repeated with detailed 
substantiation by Sluiter,” who quoted Valckenar and Luzac as 


ἧς vy, καταπλήξ and φαρμακός, in both cases with εἰ γνήσιος ; 5. v. ῥόπτρον, 
where no comment is added. 

? See Reiske VIII, 234. 

*It is scarcely justifiable to call 31 and 48 contradictory. They are, 
rather, different points of view. Andocides’ fortune has been wasted 
in saving himself from danger (ἐκ τῶν κινδύνων) ; on the other hand, 
he has not used money in the service of the state. 

“111 ff. His argument from the mention of the Herm in 11f. has 
been refuted by Kirchhoff, Hermes I (1866), 8 ff., who thought that VI 
was unquestionably written by a contemporary of Lysias, and that it was 
delivered in court. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 29 


agreeing with him.’ Bremi* also regarded it as spurious. 
Franz, who first’ defended the speech as possessing Lysias’ 
style and lacking none of his characteristics, as consistent, 
historically accurate, and actually delivered in court, later 
retracted.” 

Dobree ’ thought the speech so unlike Lysias’ speeches that it 
could not have been written in conscious imitation of Lysias. 
It is difficult to understand how he would account for its in- 
trusion into the Lysianic corpus. He did not decide whether 
it was actually delivered. Sluiter had advanced arguments for 
the view that VI was the work of a late sophist or rhetorician, 
not far removed from the time of Demetrius of Phalerum. 
These arguments Dobree assailed. He answered the criticisms 
that the speech consisted entirely of declamation and that there 
was no proof, by maintaining that VI was ἃ devrepodoyia. 
Absence of narrative was accounted for on the same grounds, 
or it might have been found in that part of the speech which has 
been lost. One would not expect, he argued, quotation of laws 
or decrees in a Sevrepodoyia; the sophistic phrases occur in 
passages where the text is corrupt; he could find no “ nitor 
fucatus ” about the speech; the speaker might have been either 
Epicrates or Meletus. Dobree left unsettled the question of 
dependence upon Andocides I. 

Becker " cited Goddeck, Init. Hist. Lit. I’, 182, as holding that 
Lysias himself delivered VI in court. He himself agreed with 
Sluiter that the author was a sophist of the time of Demetrius. 
Hdélscher “ repeated some of Sluiter’s arguments against the 
speech, such as the absence of laws, witnesses and proof, but 
thought the author a feeble imitator and contemporary of 
Lysias. The historical inconsistencies pointed out by Ruhnken 
and Sluiter, are not, according to Hdélscher, real inconsistencies ; 


* Dobree, 200, says that Valckenar in 1756 when he wrote his adver- 
saria, did not doubt its authenticity, and that Sluiter “ falso exhibet eius 
verba”. Becker, however, Andocides, Leipzig, 1832, 5, quotes Valckenar 
and Luzac as agreeing with Sluiter. 

*XVIII. Nowack, 104, cites Fértsch as rejecting VI in his edition, 

7 wept Λυσίου τοῦ ῥήτορος, 8 ff. *279. *200ff. “op. cit., 5 ff. 

"<6 ff. Quaestiunculae Lysiacae, Erfurt, 1857, 10 ff. 


30 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 

on the contrary, he found much that is evidence of accurate 
knowledge of the times. Therefore he believed that it was a 
δευτερολογία actually delivered by Meletus in the trial of Ando- 
cides. His arguments did not, however, convince Falk,” who 
thought it spurious and not written by a contemporary of Lysias. 
Pertz * rejected VI, and so did Francken,* who attributed it to 
a late rhetor. Kayser,” without defending Lysias’ authorship, 
considered that it was written by an eager partisan of the prose- 
cution at the time of the trial. He suggested that it might be an 
invective against Andocides, spread abroad in manuscript form. 
Frankel” maintained that is was actually delivered in court. 
Parow ™ left untouched the question of authorship, but gave it 
as his opinion that in its present form it is the result of frag- 
ments put together at hazard. 

Perrot * did not reject VI outright ; he believed, in any case, 
that it was written by a contemporary of Lysias, and delivered 
possibly by Callias, a suggestion neglected by most scholars, 
and refuted by Lipsius.” : 

F. A. Muller,” Gotz,” Frohberger,” Gebauer,” Baur,” Sittl,” 
Scheibe,” all rejected VI. 

Bergk “ relying upon a notice in Suidas,” advanced the theory 
that VI is the work of Theodorus of Byzantium, written for 
and delivered by Epichares whose scurrilous attack (And. 1. 
100) has been lost in the loss of the beginning of the speech. 
He suggested that the author accomodates himself, as far as 
possible, to the manner of the sycophant. Blass” disposed 
finally of the arguments from inconsistency with Andocides T, 


* 65 ff; XIV. Westermann, XVI, mentioned it as generally rejected. 

im ΤΟΝ 42}; 225. το 8 Thesis 

* 40 ff., opposed by Nowack, 104. 

* Perrot, L’Eloquence politique et judiciaire a Athénes, Paris, 1873, I, 
194. 
* Andocides, Leipzig, 1888, X, n. 35. Rogholt and Schneider also re- 
jected the possibility that Callias could have delivered VI. was 

* J.J. Suppl. VIIT (1875/76), sgof. 5 proleg., ed. 1875, 6, ἢ. 41. 

9, 0150, aro; | 2163. ed. LX 356 f. 

*s. v. Θεόδωρος. Θεόδωρος Βυζάντιος σοφιστὴς .. .. ἔγραψε κατὰ Θρασυ- 
βούλου, κατ᾽ ’Avdoxidov καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ... 


* Andocides’, Leipzig, 1880, XVIII; op. cit., 562 ff. 


a 


a 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 31 


and of other points that had been adduced to prove VI a late 
forgery. Against its genuineness he advanced the sycophantic 
nature of the speech, its lack of convincing power, absence of 
Lysianic simplicity and conciseness, and the occurrence of rare 
turns and phrases. He admitted, however, that the general 
scheme of composition and the use of figures are not incon- 
sistent with Lysianic usage. He concluded too hastily from the 
note in Suidas, and in agreement with Bergk’s suggestion, that 
the ancients had ascribed this speech against Andocides to 
Theodorus. For undoubtedly many of the rhetoricians wrote 
against Andocides, as they did against and for many prominent 
men of the time. Blass thought that VI was delivered either by 
Meletus or Epichares, and then published, for the sake of its 
contents, as a counterpart of Andocides I, probably with some 
changes and additions. Jebb” repeated in substance the con- 
clusions reached by Blass. Weidner ”™ rejected the speech. 

Lipsius * thought it was written at the time of the trial, but as 
a rhetorical production in imitation of a dicanic speech, just as 
Polycrates wrote what purported to be a speech of Anytus 
against Socrates.” He did not deny that the author might be 
Theodorus. Nowack™ rejected VI without discussion. 

Zutt “ explained VI as an epitome of a speech actually 
delivered before the court in accusation of Andocides, to which 
Andocides I is the answer. R6gholt ” thought also that it was 
delivered, and written either for Meletus or Epichares by a con- 
temporary, perhaps by Theodorus. Wilamowitz™ referred to 
it as Ps. Lysias (Meletus) against Andocides. 

Bruns ™ held that it is a rhetorical production, written shortly 
after the trial, and advanced in behalf of this view the disparities 
between Andocides I and Lysias VI, the attack on Cephisius in 
42, and especially the unsuitability for the law-court of the 
invective. Herwerden™ thought it a late rhetorical exercise, 
in agreement with Francken, whose arguments had, however, 


581 ff. “6. ™ Andoc. V, n. 1; VIII, n. 18; X, n. 35. 
* cf. Hirzel, Rh. Mus. XLII (1887), 2301.  ™ 104. 
Sop. cit. “op. cit. "II, 249, n. 55. "479f. “801: 


32 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


recently been attacked in detail by Zutt and Rogholt. Croiset ® 
and Thalheim™ rejected it without any discussion of its 
authorship. 

Weber “ attempted to demonstrate, at some length, the cor- 
rectness of the view held by Lipsius. He thought that VI was 
written after the trial, probably after the author had seen 
Andocides’ speech. Drerup “ in a review of Weber, rejected, 
as he had done, Zutt’s theory that it is an epitome. He too 
regarded VI as a literary production, written by Theodorus ; 
he attempted a proof of this from a stylistic investigation of 
VI.“ But in view of the fact that we know of Theodorus’ style 
only what may be gathered from Dionysius, de Isaeo 19“ and 
Cicero, Brutus 12. 48“ such identification can never be more 
than conjecture. 

V. Schneider “ summed up the arguments in behalf of the 
view defended by Weber and Drerup. A contemporary is indi- 
cated by the exact historical knowledge displayed in the refer- 
ences to Evagoras, 26, to Batrachus, 45 (cf. XII. 48), in men- 
tion of the two ἐνδείξεις in 30, and in the biographical informa- 
tion about Andocides in 46. 19 is suitable only to the main 
accuser,” and 42 precludes the thought of Cephisius ; 31, men- 
tion of the sycophants, is not in place in a sycophant’s speech 
delivered in court, but suggests sophistic origin for VI. The 
declamatory tone, intentional falsifications of fact in 51, the 
invective against Andocides, all point to the same conclusion. 

Schneider rejected Blass’ suggestion of revised publication, 
because he could not see the reason for such additions as 42. 
The author of this speech had before him Andocides I,” and 


41 


440; nt. ΧΧΧΥΠΙΙ͂ “op. cit.) ΒΝ ΚΝ (1901), 257 ff. 

“Jahrb. f. Phil. Sup. XXVII (1902), 337 ff. Drerup in his edition 
of Isocrates (Leipzig, 1906), prints Isocrates I as Θεοδώρου τοῦ Βυζαντίου 
πρὸς Δημόνικον. 

© ποιητικὴ κατασκευὴ καὶ τὸ μετέωρον δὴ τοῦτο καὶ πομπικὸν εἰρημένον. 

“ “in orationibus ieiunior.” 

“ Jahrb. f. Phil. Sup. XX VII (1902), 352 ff. 

“ Thalheim, B. P. W. XIV (1894), 1063, considered this passage cor- 
rupt, thought it impossible to draw conclusions from it, and emended 
it in his edition. 

“cf. And. I. 32, 137-139, 85-87, 64, with Lys. VI, 5) τοῦ το. 55 
respectively. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 33 


this author was a contemporary of Lysias. VI is a sophistic 
invective to be attributed, in all probability, to Theodorus of 
Byzantium. This conclusion is based, in part, upon Drerup’s 
stylistic investigation. 

Polak " agreed with Blass and Jebb that VI was delivered in 
court. The authorship of Theodorus seemed to him not im- 
probable, but by no means certain. Motschmann“ and Christ * 
simply rejected VI. 

Now that VI which was once regarded as the product of late 
rhetoric, has been rehabilitated as the work of a contemporary, 
it is worth while to look closely at the reasons given by scholars 
for denying absolutely the authorship of Lysias, though they 
do not hesitate to attribute it to a writer of the same age, of 
whom our knowledge is practically negligible.” Lysianic sim- 
plicity and logic may be lacking, but similar accusations have 
been brought against X!IV,xar’ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου a’, also a rhetorical 
invective, yet XIV has not been unanimously rejected. The 
occurrence of commonplaces and the touch of unnatural pathos, 
or rancour, or sycophancy,—for various scholars give various 
interpretations,—may account for the lack of convincing power 
in the speech. In my opinion the only attempt that Lysias made 
to convince was the attempt to render convincing the character 
of his spokesman through his attitude to Andocides. The 
nature of the mirror determines the form of the thing reflected. 
The archaistic and poetic turns may cause difficulty, but why 
with Lysias, and not with Theodorus? If Lysias was a master 
of ethos, he could, no doubt, assume the language of his adopted 
and possibly fictitious spokesman. That is what Polycrates 
attempted when he wrote in the person of Anytus against 
Socrates. The sentence structure, the use of rhetorical figures, 
the general scheme of composition, are all confessedly Lysianic. 


“Mnem. XXX (1902), 370f. 33. ™383. 

“The fact that Theodorus is recorded as the author of speeches 
against Thrasybulus and Andocides gives us no right to identify with 
them those attributed to Lysias. Another speech against Andocides is 
cited as Lysianic, εἰ γνήσιος, by Harpocration, s. vv. ἐπέγυιον and πλεισ- 
τηριάσαντες. 


3 


34 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


Is it not indiscreet to reject outright on grounds of the in- 
trusion of poetic and archaistic expressions,—an intrusion that 
is probably intentional,—a speech otherwise not unlike those of 
Lysias? 

It is with a legal and hierophantic (cf. 54) background, then, 
that Lysias has written this invective, and placed it in the mouth 
of an ardent partisan, a superstitious, narrow-minded conserva- 
tive, whose reactionary views are suitably clad in old-fashioned 
language. <A parallel to the peculiarity of the language might 
be sought in the differentiation of language appropriate to 
Heliastic and Areopagitic courts, and, in modern times, in the 
distinctive language of the priestly families in Russia. Whether 
or not Athens recognized the speaker, may be matter for 
speculation. 


VII. 

VII, περὶ τοῦ σηκοῦ, is the only instance in which modern 
scholars have refrained from basing rejection of a speech, or 
at least a doubt of its genuineness, upon adverse criticism that 
has come down from ancient times. It was the rhetorician 
Paulus from Mysia who, according to Photius,’ rejected this 
speech ; but his methods of criticism in general seem to have led 
him to athetesis. He was not the only one to question the 
genuineness of VII. But of the arguments of Paulus or the 
other athetisers we know nothing,’ and Photius contents him- 


cod. 262 :--μφιβάλλεται μὲν παρ᾽ ἐνίοις ὁ περὶ τοῦ σηκοῦ Adyos.... A 
detailed defense of VII follows, and then we read Παῦλος δέ γε ὁ ἐκ Μυ- 
alas τόν τε περὶ τοῦ σηκοῦ λόγον, οὐδὲν τῶν εἰρημένων συνιείς, τῆς [TE] Ὑνησι- 
ότητος τῶν Λυσιακῶν ἐκβάλλει λόγων... .. 

? Jebb, 202 :--“ Photius says . - . that the rhetorician Paulus of Mysia, 
in particular, denied its genuineness, for the unconvincing reason, that 
he could not understand a word of it”. What seems to Jebb an uncon- 
vincing reason is really an error of interpretation on his part. Not even 
Paulus could have failed to understand VII, nor could he have given 
such an argument against it. τῶν εἰρημένων in the phrase under con- 
sideration, refers to Photius’ own preceding exposition of the Lysianic 
traits found in the speech, not to the speech itself, as if it were τῶν ἐν τῷ 
λόγῳ εἰρημένων. Paulus, Photius means, rejected the speech because he 
failed to understand the criteria of genuine Lysianic speeches. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 35 


self with proving its genuineness from its regularly Lysianic 
prologue, narrative and epilogue, its clearness and brevity, its 
antitheses of thought and word, and the well-constructed cola 
of the periods. 

We cannot attribute any significance to a rejection of which 
we hear no details or reasons. Of Paulus of Mysia himself, we 
have but scant knowledge.’ It is noteworthy, finally, that Har- 
pocration quotes twice without comment a speech of Lysias, 
περὶ τοῦ σηκοῦ. ἡ 


*Suidas, 5.ν. Παῦλος. 45. vv. σηκός, ἐπιγνώμονας. 


Vili. 


VIII, κατηγορία πρὸς τοὺς συνουσιαστὰς κακολογιῶν, not men- 
tioned in antiquity, has come down to us badly mutilated, and 
is perhaps of all the extant speeches in the worst condition. 

Taylor * and Markland ἡ expressed doubt of its genuineness. 
Reiske* refused to decide the question, because much of the 
obscurity, he felt, is due to our ignorance of the facts. He 
thought it a letter or formula of renunciation of friendship, 
unique of its kind, and by no means a dicanic speech. 

Spengel* contented himself with dating the speech “ before 
the anarchy ”, and with pointing out that the first words of the 
proem suffice to disprove Reiske’s theory of its being a letter. 
Similarly, Franz* merely assigned it to an early date, i. e. to 
before 406 B. C. 

Dobree* held that VIII, like XI, κατὰ Θεομνήστου β΄, is an 
excerpt. Hodlscher,’ believing that the difference in style be- 
tween Lysias’ early and his late manner would be slight, saw in 


*ed., Cambridge, 1740. In Reiske, 395, he says only, “Oratio qua 
lutum non lutulentius”. 7206. *206. ‘125. 

“De locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis, Miinster, 1830, 
3; €d., 249. 5207. 

"70 ff. Of his detailed objections, most have been satisfactorily 
answered by Pertz, Gevers and Scheibe. 


30 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


the excessive antitheses, the repetitions, the confused structure, 
and intricate verbal constructions, reasons for rejecting it, 
rather than assigning an early date. Like Spengel he thought 
it a mere “ exercitatio ”. 

Gevers * defended the speech against H6lscher, who had him- 
self confessed that the grounds for his rejection were slight. 
He found less to criticize in the sentence structure than 
HGlscher, and accounted for singularity of diction by the con- 
dition of the mss. He therefore accepted Spengel’s dictum 
that Lysias wrote VIII before the anarchy. Scheibe* repudi- 
ated Reiske’s hypothesis that it is a letter and hesitated to reject 
the speech outright, though he thought it strange that matters 
of such slight import should occupy Lysias’ attention. He 
pointed out that the condition of the text makes it very difficult 
to reach a final conclusion, and admitted that triviality of theme, 
and the use of expressions not elsewhere occurring in Lysias are 
insufficient grounds for rejection. 

Benseler * condemned VIII because he observed avoidance 
of hiatus, and assigned it to “ rhetori cuidam eique non optimo 
seriorum temporum, quo etiam ducit argumentum exile ”. 

Falk“ did not question its genuineness, and thought it was 
probably written for actual use and delivered before a club of 
friends or acquaintances. In a purely fictitious case a rhetor, 
according to Falk, would have made a clearer statement of much 
that is merely alluded to, because it was obviously known to the 
audience addressed. O. Miller” also accepted the piece as 
Lysianic, but believed it was based upon circumstances of real 
life, and that, though sophistically worked out, it was Lysias’ 
own farewell to former comrades and friends. Bergk” called 
it a παίγνιον, and assigned it to Lysias’ youth. 

Pertz “ thought it suspicious that VIII was found in Marci- 
anus G, in which II and VI are the only other speeches pre- 


10. 

°364f. In his edition, he still leaves the question of authenticity un- 
answered, as does Westermann in his edition. 

TT AGS πο 3, Ἢ: 2: 

* Philol. XXV 850), 183; op. cit: ρος > rane 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 37 


served, as well as in X and its derived mss. For this reason, 
and because he missed a formal proem and narrative and found 
the thought generally frivolous, he decided that it had come only 
accidentally into the Lysianic corpus, and is, in reality, a 
rhetorician’s μελέτη. Most of his objections to words that he 
thought unusual and late have been answered by Polak.” 
Francken * felt that the only way to preserve VIII for Lysias 
was to assign it, as Spengel and other scholars had done, to the 
period of Sicilian influence on Lysias, but himself preferred to 
reject it as being the work of a rhetorician, mainly because of 
the inherent obscurity. Kayser“ accepted Benseler’s criterion 
and decision and rejected the speech, regarding it as the product 
of an Isocratean. 

F. Kirchner,” in an investigation which attempted to obviate, 
whether by interpretation or emendation, many of the diff- 
culties in diction that had been pointed out by previous scholars, 
expressed as his opinion that those who had rejected the speech 
judged “celerius quam verius”. Parow”™ referred to it as 
“Jacunosa et mutila”’, but not as spurious. Perrot” reverted 
to Reiske’s idea, and saw in VIII a letter of which the theme is 
developed in sophistic fashion ; according to him then it is part 
of Lysias’ sophistic work. F. A. Miller” mentioned it as un- 
questionably spurious. 

Gleiniger * pointed out that much in the speech is indicative 
of composition in Lysias’ time.” He urged that the wealth of 
detail and the absence of generalizing commonplaces prove that 
it can be no mere rhetorical exercise. Hiatus, he showed, is less 
carefully avoided than Benseler believed. Because of the 
obscurity he thought that the present form of VIII is an inten- 
tional corruption of the original Lysianic speech. He ascribes 
the intrusion of late and unusual forms partly to the work of an 
epitomizer, and partly to that of the copyist. Biirmann™ in 


17 


*Mnem. XXXI (1903), 157 ff. “το ff.; 237, “ suppositicia ”. 

* Quaestionum Lysiacarum specimen, Demmin, 1860. 

aay 240, “3, * 150 ff. 

™So, 15, the proper names; 10, the normal cost of a horse, (cf. 
Aristophanes, Nubes, 22 f.; 122 f.) ; 6, the tone of reverence in reference 
to Eleusis. “Hermes X (1876), 347 ff. 


327. 


Δοθθώς 


38 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


opposition to this view maintained that VIII is a μελέτη, written 
for a fictitious case, and that too at a late date. This he 
attempted to prove by pointing out the use of unclassical words 
and grammatical peculiarities, which however have been ade- 
quately explained both by Rohl,” who admitted spuriousness 
but refused to consider it a late μελέτη, and by Polak.” 

Jebb’s* singular invective against the worthlessness of the 
piece has been sufficiently commented upon by Polak.* Fritz- 
sche “ in a dissertation that has added little to attempted proofs 
of spuriousness,” rejected the speech. 

Albrecht “ expressed his agreement with the view suggested 
by Dobree and adopted by Gleiniger. Herrmann,” on the con- 
trary, agreed with Burmann that it is no excerpt, but spurious. 
Thalheim ™ also rejected the theory that it is an epitome. In 
defense of this view Stutzer™ used as his main argument the 
obscurity, which seemed to him also a proof that it could not be 
a μελέτη. He thought the epitome had been made for the sake 
of the rhetoric; that only enough of the original had been pre- 
served to afford a setting; and that the original belongs to 
Lysias’ early, sophistic period. Pretzsch™ and F. Schultze® 
also agree that VIII is an epitome. Gebauer™ and Sittl™ tacitly 
assume spuriousness. 

Blass ἡ" declared VIII spurious, using as a criterion avoidance 
of hiatus, some peculiarities in expression,” the excessive sim- 
plicity that is nevertheless combined with pointed antitheses 


* Bursian, IX (1877), 262f.; Zeits. f. Gymn., XXXI (1877); 3645 
RON τ 881} TOL. Lc) 9 S20, Gas 

* De pseudolysiae oratione octava, Rostock, 1877. He quotes as hav- 
ing suspected the speech, a certain Wilkius (?) ina Leipzig Programme 
of 1870, “ Die achte Rede des Lysias”. I have been unable to secure this 
programme, or to find any detailed account of it. There is a bare 
mention of it by Nowack, 205, and another by Hallensleben, 4, n. 23 

Ἢ Reviewed by Blass in Bursian IX (1877); referred to by him in 
A. B. I, 642, n. 6, as “ wenig bedeutend ”, 

29; 5. ™ Jahrb. f. Phil. CX VII (1878), τῆ πῆ - 481. 

* De Lysiae oratione trigesima, Berlin, 1883, 27 f. 17, n. so. 

*151. He pointed out that only in VIII. 18, do we find μὰ τοὺς θεούς, 
the solitary parallels to which are VI. 7, 32, 38, μὰ τὸν Δία. ὃ 640 ff. 

“Including some that have been defended by other scholars ;—for 
10, φιλοσοφοῦντας, see Scheibe, 365; 7, πολύφιλος; 17, ἀπόθετος, 
παρακαταθήκην, have been paralleled by Polak, 1. c. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 39 


and paranomasia ; his final argument was that he could not find 
natural ethos or any other Lysianic quality in it. An epitomizer, 
he thought, would not have avoided hiatus. He was inclined 
to agree with Reiske that it is a letter, or rather a letter of 
resignation in the form of a speech; he believed that it was 
written for actual use before an ἰδία ὁμιλία" He dated it 
towards the end of the Attic period, but admitted the impossi- 
bility of arriving at a definite conclusion concerning this unique 
piece of work. 

Hallensleben* in a programme not highly valued by Nowack,* 
- rejected it mainly on grounds of excessive antitheses and un- 
pleasant verbal repetitions. He thought it was actually de- 
livered in an assembly of friends. Weidner® reverted with 
some hesitation to the idea that VIII is an epitome. Nowack “ 
rejected it. 

Vianello,* as Baur “ had already done, accepted it as genuine, 
while Christ * did not even raise the question of authenticity. 

Herwerden® spoke of it as “futilis et obscura”, and 
bracketed it in his edition. Schneider® and Croiset” con- 
sidered it spurious. Thalheim®” expressed himself with less 
finality. Hude bracketed the speech. 

Polak “ dated the speech at the end of the fourth or beginning 
of the third century B. C., rejecting Biirmann’s arguments for a 
later and Thalheim’s for an earlier date of composition.” He 
thought it was written for an actual occasion, and so, with Falk, 
explained the obscurity by assuming that the writer merely 
alluded to facts already known to the judges. The ethopoiia 
that he found, he thought unintentional, and therefore more 
effective ; finally, he resented the low valuation of the speech by 
Blass and Jebb. 

The one point upon which scholars agree in reference to VIII] 


“cf. Anaximenes, Rhet. 1; Dionys., de Thuc. 49. |“ op. cit. 

“ 104, he speaks of it as “nullius pretii”. “6. “104f. 

“L’ottava orazione di Lisia e le societa private Atheniensi, Genoa, 
1895. See Bursian, 84, for a review of this. Ferrai is cited as believing 
either in spuriousness, or at least in considerable revision, 

“t49f. 376. “Mnem. XXV (1807), 217. 357. "449, n. I. 

aati. ~Mnem. XXXI (1903), 157 ff. κω 

“He explained the use of ξύν as conscious Atticizing. 


40 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


is that it certainly was never delivered, or written for delivery, 
before a court.” Whether or not it was written for delivery 
before an assembly of friends is still a moot point. The main 
argument urged against its being a merely epideictic piece is 
the obscurity which has, I think, been overemphasized, without 
sufficient consideration of the condition of the text. The gen- 
eral situation is clear: a man who has been treated by members 
of his club in such a way as virtually to oblige him to resign, 
turns the tables and, in an address to them which is in fine an 
accusation of them, signifies his intention to withdraw. The 
story of the horse (10 f.) is more than an allusion, and the text 
is responsible for the blurred outlines. It is unlikely that such 
a speech was written by another than the man who delivered it, 
and still more unlikely that, if it was not written for publication, 
it should have been preserved. It is not of course a μελέτη in 
the sense of a rhetorical treatise on an abstract theme, but it is 
almost certainly, as Bergk thought, a παίγνιον. The fact that it 
has come down also in a separate ms. should be a confirmation, 
rather than cause for doubt, of its authenticity. The combina- 
tion with II and VI suggests that the scribe chose samples of 
various types of Lysias’ work,—the epitaphius, the invective, 
the παίγνιον .---- 411} of them epideictic. 

Avoidance of hiatus, which is noticeable, but which Benseler, 
as Gleiniger pointed out, exaggerated might suggest that Lysias, 
at one period of his career, entered into rivalry with Isocrates ; 
we know that in several instances they wrote on the same 
themes.” There is no foundation for the assumption, made by 
those who date the speech early, that Lysias as he grew older 
was less influenced by Sicilian rhetoric, or that he could not 
have written such a παίγνιον long after he was established in 
Athens. The fact that Plato, in the Phaedrus, after Lysias had 
gained fame, used the Eroticus to characterize the Lysianic 
manner is significant. 


ὲ ater u. Schomann, Der Attische Process, ed. Lipsius, Berlin, 1883/ 
7, 628. 


“ Isocrates XXI and Lysias fr. XXIV; Isocrates XVI and Lysias 
XIV, XV. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 41 


The theory that it is an epitome, so easily advanced, so in- 
capable of proof, does not obviate any difficulties. The remain- 
ing objections to genuineness,—first the antitheses, and secondly 
the occurrence of unusual forms,—are less significant than they 
would appear at first sight. Since this piece is unique we have 
no fair standard by which to judge its rhetoric, and though 
Lysias as a rule uses antitheses with moderation, still with this 
type of speech he may have been guided by conventions. The 
citation of parallels or justifiable emendation has removed 
nearly all the exceptions taken to certain unusual forms. To 
balance these we have the use of ξύν and other minor indications 
of an early date. 

The humour of the situation and the irony with which the 
speaker is characterized are, one would think, unmistakeable. 
In both Lysianic inversion plays a part. The conclusion (18 ff.) 
is, as Baur remarked, especially good. Certainly one must say 
that the summary rejection of the speech which has been the 
fashion of late years is unwarranted.” 


“Tt is interesting to compare with the invective against the evil 
speakers in this piece, Theophrastus’ description of the evil speaker 
(Jebb-Sandys ed., 1909, 112 f.) :—xai συγκαθήμενος δεινὸς περὶ τοῦ ἀναστάν- 
tos εἰπεῖν͵ kal ἀρχήν γε εἰληφὼς μὴ ἀποσχέσθαι μηδὲ τοὺς οἰκείους αὐτοῦ λοι- 
δορῆσαι καὶ πλεῖστα περὶ τῶν φίλων καὶ οἰκείων κακὰ εἰπεῖν. ... καὶ τῶν 
ἐν τῷ βίῳ ἥδιστα τοῦτο ποιῶν. 


ΙΧ. 


IX, ὑπὲρ τοῦ στρατιώτου, is cited once by Harpocration,’ with 
some doubt of its genuineness. Taylor, owing to its obscurity, 


1s. ν, Δίκαιωσις᾽ Λυσίας ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ τοῦ στρατιώτου, εἰ γνήσιος καὶ μάλα, 
τὰς δικαιώσεις φησὶν ἀντὶ τοῦ δικαιολογίας (8)" ὁ μέντοι Θουκυδίδης πολλάκις 
τὴν δικαίωσιν ἐπὶ τῆς κολάσεως τάττει. Pabst agrees with Francken that 
καὶ μάλα was inserted by a scribe who wished to show that he thought 
the query unnecessary. Zonaras s. v. Δικαίωσις and Cramer, Anecd, Ox- 
on. II, 439. 2, also cite Lysias’ use of δικαίωσις as equivalent to δικαιολογία. 


If they drew from Harpocration, they evidently disregarded his 
el γνήσιος; if not, this is some substantiation of the authenticity of the 
speech. ws 

2 So in his edition. In Reiske, 317, “ Harpocration. . . . merito ambigit 


εἰ γνήσιος haec oratio”’. 


42 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


thought it spurious, though he realized that the condition of the 
text is, in part, at fault. He thought that the Ctesicles men- 
tioned in 6, was the archon of 333 B. C.;* in this he was fol- 
lowed by Reiske * and Dobree,’ who, however, characterized IX 
as “ arguta, elegans, subtilis”. Franz,’ meanwhile, had dated it 
early, before 406 B. C., and in this way accounted for the lack of 
finish in a style not otherwise unlike that of Lysias. 

Westermann in his Griechische Beredsamkeit, Leipzig, 1833/ 
35, 278, bracketed the speech, but expressed no doubt of its 
genuineness in his edition of 1854. Hoélscher‘ pointed out that 
the Ctesicles mentioned in 6 is one of the generals who fined 
Polyaenus, and accepted IX as genuine. Falk* also regarded 
it as Lysianic. 

Francken’ rejected it. First he concluded that it was muti- 
lated, because, in spite of 3 ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι περὶ πάντων <THV> ἀπο- 
λογίαν ποιῆσασθαι, the only mention of Polyaenus’ former life is 
found in 14. This fact may be used as an argumentum ex 
silentio against the speaker, but is no real evidence for mutila- 
tion, or ground for rejection. Francken took exception to many 
passages for which obviously the condition of the mss., not the 
author, is responsible, and for most of them he himself sug- 
gested satisfactory explanations or emendations. His objection 
to 2 as inconsistent with 10, is, in my opinion, not valid, for in 2 
the defendant’s contention is that his opponents felt contempt 
for the whole affair rather than for him, (and contempt of court 
on their part is neatly insinuated), whereas in 10 he simply 
proves that they are his enemies. The discrepancy between the 
law quoted in 6 and that quoted in Demosthenes’ Meidias 33 15 
no reason for rejection ; either Athenian law was in a fluid state, 
or, as I should prefer to think, speeches that were not written 
for actual use would not necessarily cling to the letter of the 
law. As for Demosthenes’ Meidias, we know that the case was 
compromised, and that the speech was never delivered (Blass, 
ἈΠ ΡΣ 287). 


* 320, “ibid. | * 1925 200. 
° De locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis, 3; ed., 250. 
‘7A 10S.) | 7 O4iih 2372), SUPpoOSsiticiane 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 43 


Further, Francken dated the speech by what he thought a 
reference to the archon Ctesicles.” His final argument against 
the genuineness of IX is its obscurity, which is however suffici- 
ently explained by the presence of lacunae. 

Halbertsma ἡ was the first to suggest that IX is an epitome, 
and that of a speech not composed by Lysias. He of course 
pointed to its obscurity, and objected furthermore to the use of 
ἀναγράφεσθαι, 7, for ἐγγράφεσθαι, although the two are used in- 
terchangeably in XXX. 2; to κατηγορούντων for κατηγόρων, 14, 
which however recurs in XII. 2, and elsewhere. 

Scholl,” Kayser,” Gebauer,* F. A. Miiller,* all rejected IX. 
So also did Herrman,” but upon insufficient grounds, as Rohl“ 
pointed out. 

Albrecht * regarded it as an epitome, a view championed at 
some length by Stutzer,” whose main arguments are drawn 
from the obscurity of the case, from the absence of testimony 
and laws, and from the lack of the usual accusations against the 
opponents. All this convinced him that the speech in its present 
condition is unfitted for delivery in court, and hence he thought 
it probable that the present form is an abbreviation. In con- 
firmation of his view he adduced peculiarities of diction, al- 
though there is scarcely one of Lysias’ extant speeches that 
would be found free of such peculiarities; and faults in the 
composition, such as the lack of clear distinction and transition 
between proof and narrative. Pretzsch” and F. Schultze* also 
thought IX an epitome. Scheibe* left unanswered the ques- 
tion of authorship. 


” For this view, see Falk, 110, n. 6, and Jebb, Nowack, Pabst, among 
more recent scholars; on the other side, Hdlscher, Siegfried, Gilbert, 
Blass, Thalheim. Lysias uses ἄρχων for στρατηγός in XVI. 6, XXVIII. 
15, XIV. 21, XV. 5. For parallels of the construction, see Pabst 47, to 


which may be added XXI.8. “17f. “10, n. 1. 307 ἢ ; 
“De argumenti ex contrario formis, Zwickau, 1877, 370; op. cit, 7, 
ms. * 3, on 
%6 He found contrary to Lysianic usage πρόφασις, 7, περὶ ἐλάττονος 
ποιεῖσθαι, 16, 18, 22! ™ Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXIII (1879), 43. 


“29. Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXVI (1882), 340. 
#499. Hermes XVI (1881), 88 ff. 
ant, “op. cit. 27. “ed., LXXXL 


44 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


Blass * cited against Stutzer the fulness of proem and epi- 
logue as contrasted with the slightness of narrative and proof, 
but used this as an argument for rejection. The ethos, he felt, 
was not sustained; the narrative devoid of charm, the proof 
insufficient, the style lacking in Lysianic simplicity. 

Jebb* thought it spurious, written by a poor imitator of 
Lysias, but fora real case. Weidner” considered that possibly 
it is a late excerpt. Nowack * rejected it, advancing as special 
objection the solitary address to the judges in 3. He admitted 
that the writer was evidently versed in Attic law, an admission 
defended by Pabst,” who rejected the speech, and by Keller,” 
who accepted it. Pabst’s rejection is based virtually upon the 
same arguments as those advanced by Stutzer and Blass, 
although, no doubt, his identification of Ctesicles with the 
archon influenced his decision. 

Herwerden™® was convinced of its spuriousness by what he 
thought was avoidance of hiatus, and agreed with Halbertsma 
that it is an epitome of a non-Lysianic speech. Croiset ® and 
Thalheim® also rejected it. Polak,” in refutation of Her- 
werden’s argument, pointed out cases of unquestionable hiatus 
but still refused to accept the speech as genuine, though like 
Jebb he thought it written for a real case. Christ™ found 
Lysias’ lucidity absent from the subject and the style, but did 
not reject IX outright. Hude,” influenced by the “ prosopopeia 
egregia ”’, accepted it. 

The rejection of IX, based upon the slightness of the narra- 
tive and proof, is virtually a rejection of it as unfit for use in 
the court. The so-called obscurity, upon which earlier scholars 
laid so much emphasis, has vanished in the light of recent in- 
vestigations such as those of Pabst and Keller. The author has 
even been freed from the accusation of ignorance of Attic law. 
There remain then only objections due to the absence of charm 
and ethos, and to the lack of simplicity in style. But, in my 
opinion, it is precisely the presence of ethos that accounts for 


ἢ 506 fi. 242 “6. “105.  * op: οἷν ΟΡ, ΟΠ 
440, the τὶ CURES 7 109 τ 268. sue 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 45 


the truculent, pointedly antithetical style. The speaker is a 
veteran with a grievance, without the humour of the invalid 
who speaks in XXIV. It must be remembered that ethos pre- 
supposes an interpreter of some dramatic imagination. 

Considering the small proportion of Lysias’ work that has 
survived, ἅπαξ λεγόμενα that are paralleled in writers of the 
classical period” should not be used as an argument against 
genuineness. The generally poor condition of the text may be 
in part responsible for the presence of difficulties. 

The impossibility of identifying the persons named in the 
speech (for obviously Ctesicles is a general and not the archon), 
suggests its being a piece of fiction, a view substantiated by the 
absence of testimony and of citation of laws. On the whole, 
therefore, there is no reason for rejecting a speech that is a good 
example of Lysias’ skill in ethopotia. 


* See Pabst, 20 ff. 


X. 


Harpocration ἡ six times quotes X, κατὰ Θεομνήστου (α΄), four 
times with the addition εἰ γνήσιος, never, as Blass’ pointed out, 
with any sign to distinguish it from a second speech, κατὰ 
Θεομνήστου (β΄). Led by this repeated reflection upon its genu- 
ineness, various scholars have found cause to reject the speech ; 
to many however the grounds for doing so seem insufficient.’ 
To Dobree* moreover it seemed “ arguta, elegans, subtilis ”’. 

Westermann bracketed X in his Griechische Beredsamkeit, 
279, but in his edition allowed it to go unquestioned. Scheibe ἡ 
was the first to advance arguments against it. He objected to 


᾿ς, vy. ἀπίλλειν, ἀπόρρητα, πεφασμένης, ποδοκάκκη, (with εἰ γνήσιος) ; ἐπι- 
ορκήσαντα, οἰκέως (without comment). SOO τ 1 

*Holscher, 76; Falk, 114 f.; Frohberger II, 58; Stutzer, 564, n. 1. 

ΤΟΣ, "365. 


46 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


what he thought the historical inaccuracy of 31, where the 
speaker says that he proceeded against the Thirty immediately 
upon coming of age, i. e. in 399 B. C. (cf. 4). But by 399, 
Scheibe protested, all of the Thirty, except Eratosthenes and 
Pheidon, had been put out of the way (Lys. XII. 54), and 
even Eratosthenes had been prosecuted by Lysias. Such a 
blunder in a genuine speech is to him incredible. 

Frohberger*® and Blass* have answered this objection by 
stating that the possibility of procedure against Pheidon and 
Eratosthenes sufficed to make 31 intelligible. But before their 
answer, Hecker ἡ had, on the same grounds as Scheibe, rejected 
X. Further, Francken* thought the speech one of Lysias’ best. 
He also objected to 31 as historically impossible, but accounted 
for it by assuming that the speaker lied about his age in 4. 

Birmann,” without further reason than the presence of 
ἀνιαρός and σκαιός, and Harpocration’s repeated εἰ yvnows, re- 
jected X. But ἀνιαρός and its forms are found in XXV. 20, as 
well as in VIII. 2, Phaedrus 233b, I. 73; X) 55. ἈΠ τὸ torns 
of σκαιός, only in VIII. 15 and X. 15. Two years later, Konrad 
Herrmann ” also, in a more detailed investigation, came to the 
conclusion that X is spurious ; he thought it a post-Demosthenic 
exercise. Assigning considerable importance to Harpocration’s 
doubt, he hunted out parallels between X and the other speeches 
to which Harpocration attached εἰ γνήσιος, i. 6. VI, XIV, 
XXIV (9), XXX, and also between X and those which he him- 
self considered spurious, II, VIII, IX. These parallels in 
themselves are slight and Herrmann confessed that they would 
not suffice to disprove the genuineness of X.” The linguistic 
peculiarities cited by him fail to justify a belief in the spurious- 


ΠΟ, τι 21 605: 

“op. cit.. 5 1. Frohberger, 58, rejected his arguments as wholly un- 
tenable. He overlooked Scheibe, calling Hecker the only supporter of 
Harpocration. 72; 78. 

” Hermes X (1876), 370. Against him, Polak, Mnem. XXXI (1903), 
ΟΡ ει" 

" Gleiniger, 150 fi., had pointed out parallels between X and VIII in 
defense of VIII. These Herrmann used to prove the spuriousness of X. 
The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 47 


ness of the speech. There is scarcely one among all the extant 
speeches that does not contain, among other stylistic peculiari- 
ties, one or more words used only once in what remains of 
Lysias’ work. Not satisfied with the explanation of 31 as 
interpreted by Frohberger and Blass, Herrmann revived 
Scheibe’s objection to it as historically inaccurate. He further 
attacked the construction of the speech as unlike that of 
Lysianic speeches, especially the absence of narrative, absence 
of proof and evidence, and the considerable space given to 
discussion and interpretation of the laws.” 

But these peculiarities of treatment result, partly at least, 
from the nature of the fictitious case, and no one of these points 
can make us hesitate about the author, if we look upon it as not 
intended for actual use in court. The fact that X is in accord 
with rhetoricians’ rules (cf. especially the amplificatio, 21 ff., 
at the beginning of the peroration) proved conclusively to 
Herrmann that it was a late rhetorical exercise. In answer to 
this, Rohl * pointed out that rhetoricians’ rules were originally 
derived from speeches which they considered models. From 
parallels between X and the speeches of Demosthenes against 
Meidias, Timocrates, and Androtion, Herrmann deduced con- 
scious imitation on the part of the writer. These parallels, 
however, are sufficiently explained by the similarity of subject 
matter, and, in any case, Herrmann has overemphasized them, 
and sometimes even exaggerated the likeness by emendation. 
It would be very strange indeed if a rhetorician’s exercise done 
in imitation of Demosthenes should find its way into the Lysianic 
corpus. This view has found no approbation among scholars.” 
Moreover the Meidias, on a case that was compromised out of 
court, bears many traces of being an essay by Demosthenes in 
many of the forms of epideictic invective and encomium. 


* cf. Polak, 172, who compares with X. 6 ff., XTX. 45-53, for unusual 
length of exposition. 

“Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXIII (1879), 42 ff. ; 

16 Against Herrmann, Rohl, 1. c.; Gebauer, 7, ἢ. 50; Blass, Bursian 
XXI (1880), 184; op. cit., 607, n. 6; Stutzer, Hermes XVI (1881), 97 i 
Nowack, 100 f. 


48 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


Sittl * referred to X as certainly spurious, without however 
attempting any proof. The later rhetoricians, therefore, ac- 
cording to him, failed to recognize this when they made the 
“ verkiirzte Variation” (XI). Stutzer” had already pointed 
out the improbability in the assumption that rhetoricians worked 
over a spurious speech. Baur” thought that suspicions of 
spuriousness had not been sufficiently well grounded. Blass * 
considered X genuine, hesitating only at the similarity between 
X. 28 and 23 of the Epitaphius, which he considered spurious. 
Rohl” had already explained these two passages as versions 
of the same commonplace. Jebb” also held that X was probably 
genuine. 

Bruns ἢ revived doubts of its genuineness. He objected to 
the irascibility and petulance of the plaintiff, to his indirect 
thrusts at the judges, 1 and 24, to his characterization of Theom- 
nestus~ and to the ‘“‘ Unsachlichkeit”’ of the attack. The 
reproach that Theomnestus is a coward is emphasized by repe- 
tition, (though nearly always by insinuation, so that the speaker 
avoids libel) ; he and his father are alike in that, and big men, 
too! (cf. 28, 29.) This, Bruns thought, had no place in an 
accusation for slander; furthermore it refers to the previous 
trial, in which the speaker had testified against Theomnestus, 
who nevertheless had won the case. 

In my opinion, Bruns erred in his interpretation of the char- 
acter of the speaker, who is by no means the prototype of the 
man from Shropshire. On the contrary, he is a man of con- 
siderable humour, and no little irony. He would not have 
objected to an accusation of murdering Theomnestus’ father, 2; 
his brother had robbed him of his patrimony after his father’s 
death,—of course, then, he wished his father alive (cf. 5; also 
Q, 11,21, 28-31). The detailed interpretation of the laws, 15 ff., 
suggests a comic scene in which a master instructs an obtuse 


i 149; 154, ἢ. Nowack, 1. c., expressed surprise at such a statement. 
ἘΣ 


aes “162. ™”Bursian XXI (1880), 184; op. cit., 6or ff. 

1: δ᾽; ef se olake lye. » tuS05 5 AG: 

* Bruns thinks that Lysias’ plaintiffs do not, in their attacks upon the 
defendant, give a sketch of his character. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 49 


pupil with painful seriousness, most ludicrous to the spectator, 
and the theme is that of Aristophanes Banqueters, fgg. τοῦ, 
222. The thrusts at Theomnestus for his cowardice can hardly 
be said to characterize. They are usually put in a humourous 
way, 9, 28, 29, and serve to betray the ethos of the speaker 
rather than that of Theomnestus. It is scarcely fair to say that 
the speaker attacks the judges. He does little more than men- 
tion the fact that they absolved Theomnestus in the previous 
trial, and enters into no invective against them. It is clear then 
that Bruns’ arguments prove nothing against the genuineness 
of the speech, and that, as Polak * remarked, they are based 
upon “ praejudicata eaque falsa opinione ”’. 

What Bruns called the “ Unsachlichkeit’’ of the charge, 
points to the epideictic nature of the speech. So too the pro- 
longed examination of laws, which, as has been pointed out 
above, suggests a comic scene. The trick of identifying, 1, the 
judges of this with those of the preceding trial (both fictitious), 
avoids the necessity of calling witnesses to Theomnestus’ words. 
The ethos of the speaker, humourous and ironical, also suggests 
the epideictic. If we resign the idea of an actually delivered 
speech, we need not be disturbed about the historical possibility 
of 31, since we may then assume either (with Francken) that 
the speaker lied in 4, or that Lysias simply neglected historical 
detail. In any case, historical precision is no sine qua non in 
Greek literature, and readers of the speech which was written 
no earlier than 384/3 B. C. (cf. 4), would no doubt have over- 
looked the inaccuracy, supposing it to be an inaccuracy.” 

The introduction of the previous εἰσαγγελία against Theom- 
nestus, 1, on the charge of cowardice, (a case necessarily 
assumed to have been won by him, otherwise the plaintiff's task 
would have been too easy); his retaliation upon one of the 
witnesses in a suit ψευδομαρτυριῶν 24; upon the speaker, by call- 
ing him parricide,— all this culminates in the present accusation 

ΒΥ f, 

*In this way, historical inaccuracies in VI are accounted for by 


Schneider, Jahrb. Suppl. XXVII (1902), 367 ff., as permissible in a 
sophistic exercise, though not in a speech actually delivered. 


4 


50 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


against Theomnestus. Here we have a story of intricate 
threads, comic irony, told by a humourist, perhaps with a desire 
to parody the slander cases of the day. The fact that the speaker 
does not hesitate to apply incriminating epithets, 28, 29, to 
Theomnestus and his father, adds irony to the jest. 

We hear of a speech against Pantaleon “ whom Sauppe ἡ and 
HOlscher * identified with the brother of the speaker (cf. 5). 
This suggests the possibility that Lysias found his speech 
against Theomnestus so successful, precisely because of the 
speaker’s ethos, that he put another into the mouth of the same 
“hero”, connecting the two by the personality of the narrator. 
In a way, we may find in this a parallel to the modern serial 
novel.” 

26 Bergk’s (ep. ad Schiller, 136 ff.) identification of Pantaleon with 
the Pantaleon of comedy, though approved by Holscher, 196, was re- 
jected by Blass, 602, n. 8, on the ground of insufficient proof. 

Oral ΔῊ 11 202.  “ιοῦ: 

cf. Isaeus XI and [Dem.] XLIII; Isocrates XVI and Lysias ΧΙΝ 


and XV; Isocrates’ Trapeziticus (against Pasion), and Dem. XXXVI 
(for Phormio) and XLV (against Stephanus). 


XI. 


XI, κατὰ Θεομνήῆστου β΄, has been, almost from Scaliger’s* 
time, regarded as a mere epitome of X, and, as such, the work 
of a late rhetorician. Taylor,’ however, suggested two other 
possibilities : first, that X was an enlarged and improved version 
of XI; secondly,—this he thought more probable,—that XI was 
a preliminary speech before the diaetetae mentioned in X. 6. 
Hudtwalcker’ rejected the second alternative on the ground 
that regular speeches were not delivered before the diaetetae, 
and that probably no Athenian ever went to the expense of em- 
ploying Lysias to write a speech for him to deliver before them. 
Hélscher * also rejected this view. Markland*® thought XI a 


2 


*in Reiske, 347 f. 2242. * 80 fay τ ει nea See 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 51 


mere epitome of X, done as a school exercise by a late rheto- 
rician, and all subsequent scholars have agreed with him. 

Herrmann‘ and Albrecht * investigated in detail the relation 
of XI to X. Both of them came to the conclusion that XI is a 
mere epitome of the preceding speech, which Herrmann’ 
thought spurious, but Albrecht accepted as genuine. 

Forms of address, proper names, citation of laws, calling of 
witnesses are all lacking in XI. So, too, with slight exceptions, 
all mention of the previous lawsuits and the preliminary hear- 
ing before the arbiters. The ethos of the speaker is practically 
gone, though there is a tone of irony in XI. 7 (cf. X. 21), and 
in XI. 9 (cf. X. 28). It is as if XI were merely the framework 
of X, but there is no more reason to think it an epitome than a 
first brief draft. 

Albrecht objected to the repetition of words in XI. 1 and 2, 
which he thought due to abbreviation, but he might equally 
well have objected, though he did not, to repetitions in X. 10-13. 
For the peculiarities of phrase in XI, he himself quoted Lysianic 
parallels. He pointed out ovvoidacw, XI. 1, as un-Attic, but 
Antiphon in his tetralogies, and Thucydides use occasional 
Ionic forms. ἐκλαμβάνειν he called, “ inferioris aevi”, but the 
word is used in the sense of “ understand ”, “ interpret ”’, not 
only by Aristotle, but by Plato, Laws 807d. There is no reason, 
therefore, on the score of language, to assign a late date to XI. 

It is clear from passages that are identical word for word in 
the two speeches,” that one must have been written with the 


* Unless we except Sittl, 149, who prefers to call it a “ verkiirzte Varia- 
mon’. ‘op.cit. ‘°1-12. 

*He deduces from a certain degree of freedom in the epitomizer’s 
work that he must have known that X was spurious, and argues that 
only if he for this reason realized the unimportance of the names and 
similar details, could he have subjected the original speech to such 
treatment. If he realized their unimportance, it was probably because 
he understood that it was a mere piece of epideixis, not because he 
doubted its genuineness. Stutzer, Hermes XVI (1881), 97, points out 
that it is unlikely that a spurious speech would have been epitomized. 

*X. 6-8= XI. 3-4, and in most of the parallel passages, the only 
difference is the absence of names and formulae of address in XI, and 
their presence in X. 


52 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


other in front of the writer. If, therefore, we find in XI devia- 
tions that do not serve for abbreviation, this will be an indica- 
tion against the assumption that it is an epitome. So λαμβάνειν 
X. 13 is replaced by ἐκλαμβάνειν XI. 6; " there is variation in 
tense between X. 23 and XI. 8, between X. 27 and XI. 9 (in 
XI. g the expression is also somewhat fuller). In XI. 8 
διέσπαρται κατὰ τὴν πόλιν is paralleled by ἐν τῇ πόλει κατεσκέ- 
δασται, and in ΧΙ. 9 the genitive with ἐπί corresponds to the 
dative with ἐν in X. 28. 

It seems likely, therefore, that X and XI are not speech and 
epitome, but that XI was a first sketch, later expanded by Lysias 
into X. This relieves us of the necessity of explaining how an 
epitome made its way into the corpus, a necessity not recognized 
by advocates of the commonly accepted theory. It is not re- 
markable that Harpocration does not cite XI, or appear to know 
it. The same is true of XV, κατὰ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου B’, though he cites 
from XIV, κατὰ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου a’. 


“I should keep the infinitive in X. 13, as read in ms. X, as a διὰ μέσου 
construction, in which the writer was obviously influenced by the quite 
normal infinitive in XI. 6. 


XII. 


XII, κατὰ ᾿Ερατοσθένους, regarded as genuine by the ancients, 
has been almost universally and unhesitatingly accepted by 
modern scholars. Gleiniger,’ without attempt at demonstration, 
declared his belief that the present form of the speech betrays 
more or less revision, but Hecker * alone rejected it. Hecker’s 
arguments from the supposed historical inaccuracies in the 
speech, from linguistic peculiarities, and finally from the fact 
that Lysias, as metic, could not have delivered it, were refuted 


* Plutarch, Harpocration, Pollux. For a complete list of testimonia, 
see Holscher, 77f. ” Hermes IX (1875), 168,n.1. op. cit. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 53 


at some length by Rauchenstein.* Westermann " and Francken ° 
have also disproved Hecker’s arguments. His rejection has not 
been supported by more recent scholars." His argument from 
the fact that Lysias as a metic could not deliver the speech has 
been met in various ways, but it is generally agreed that Lysias 
did deliver it, whether it was a case of extraordinary procedure, 
or a result of the citizenship temporarily conferred upon him by 
the decree of Thrasybulus.* But even if it could be proved that 
Lysias could not and did not deliver the speech, this, in my 
opinion, would not militate against its genuineness, and, as a 
matter of fact, Wilamowitz”* thinks that after its delivery, it 
was published as a political pamphlet. 


*Zeits. f. d. Altswiss. VII (1849), 348 ff. Nowack, 191, thinks his 
criticism unnecessarily harsh, but is himself entirely opposed to Hecker’s 
view. ΡΝ ΕΠ; 

‘79 ff. Kayser, 328, approves, but finds Francken’s refutation too 
gentle. 

7 Polak, 179, n. I., refers to it as “ Alphonsi Heckeri sententia sane- 
quam mirabilis et nunc dudum silentio oblitterata”’. 

* Croiset, 433; Wilamowitz, II, 219, n. 4., insists upon the “ juristische 
Selbststandigkeit” of metics. °II, 223. 


XIII. 


XIII, κατὰ ’Ayoparov, resembles closely, in style and subject 
matter, the preceding speech, κατὰ ’Eparoo@évovs. It is natural, 
therefore, to find that Hecker * attacks the genuineness of XIII 
also. After quoting from it as a genuine speech, he retracts his 
opinion with twelve pages, “ Ita p. 1. 12. oratione in Agoratum 
tamquam a Lysia scripta usum esse et verbis emendationem 
adhibuisse nunc piget. Quam suppositam esse a Graeculo ludi- 
magistro idoneis argumentis enicam”. Rauchenstein* and 
Westermann* referred to this rejection with some scorn. 
Whether or not this criticism checked Hecker’s investigation, I 
have been unable to find any further communication of his upon 
the subject. 


*1; 13. “ΖΕΙ͂; f. d. Altswiss. VII (1849), 348. °* XIX. 


54 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


XIV. 


XIV, κατ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου λιποταξίου, the former of two speeches 
against a son of the great Alcibiades, is cited once by Harpocra- 
tion, with the reservation, εἰ γνήσιος. Markland* was the first 
to substantiate this doubt, by pointing out the absence of the 
Lysianic “numerus”. HoOlscher,’ who, like Taylor, Reiske,’ 
Dobree,* thought the speech genuine, was criticized by Scheibe ° 
for not answering Markland’s argument. Scheibe, however, 
did not, at least in this place, reject XIV outright.’ 

Falk,’ Francken,’ Frohberger,” and others” insist in spite of 
Harpocration’s doubt, upon the genuineness of XIV. The 
treatment of the older Alcibiades in this speech roused Vischer 
to indignation against its author, who was, however, defended 
by Rauchenstein ἢ as having been excessively irritated by the 
encomium in Isocrates XVI, περὶ τοῦ ζεύγους. Teichmiiller * saw 
evidence of Lysianic authorship in the very invective that dis- 
turbed Vischer. Rohl“ questioned its authenticity; Gotz” 
referred to it as “ dem Lysias beigelegt ", and Gilde * thought 
that it was written by a contemporary of Lysias. These scholars 
were probably convinced, though Reinhardt * and Carel” were 
not, by the arguments of Blass against the genuineness of XIV. 

Blass,” though admitting that there are no external grounds 
against the speech, except Harpocration’s εἰ γνῆσιος, still decided 
upon rejection. Parallels with XXX he naturally refused to 


1s. v. ᾿Αλκιβιάδης. 7553 0n § 47. °83 ff. 

* Scheibe, 367, concludes wrongly from Reiske’s note, 544 f., that he 
questioned its genuineness. “102. 

®1. c. He cites Markland’s note, 547 f., as attacking the genuineness 
of XIV. That is strange in view of the fact that it apostrophizes the 
author as “O bone Lysia”. 

7 He brackets it, however, in Die Oligarchische Umwalzung zu Athen, 
Leipzig, 1841, as does Dessoulavy (cf. Nowack 5, n. 1). Scheibe does 
not question its genuineness in his edition. Westermann, Griechische 
Beredsamkeit, 280, bracketed XIV and XV, but rejected neither in his 
edition: aw ized 10S ts 237; “Tay 

4 Frankel, 8; Baur, 239; Sittl assumes its genuineness ; Thomaschik, 
thesis II. “cf. Blass, 492. ™II, 266. 

4 Zeits. f. Gymn. XIX (1865), Jber. 2. 

57. J. Suppl. VIII (1875/76), 540. “43. “3, n. 2. ΖΜ 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 55 


admit as evidence of genuineness.” Two considerations led 
Blass to rejection :—first, the style of the speech which contains 
rhetorical figures in excess, especially homoioteleuta, for which 
he can find parallels only in the Epitaphius;* secondly the 
absence of ethos, of charm, and of convincing power. To 
account for the Lysianic simplicity of expression and careless- 
ness of arrangement, he suggested that the author was an 
imitator of Lysias. 

Neither Jebb* nor Bergk * rejected XIV. Nowack,” in his 
detailed investigation, after some hesitation finally accepted the 
arguments of Blass, and gave as his ultimatum the following :— 
“ Atque hac re sola (i. e. lack of χάρις) permoveor, ut etiam 
orationem XIV spuriam esse maiore fiducia contendam”. 
Pabst * bracketed both XIV and XV. 

Thalheim” found the arguments for rejection insufficient ; 
so too Motschmann,” who answered the arguments advanced by 
Blass in the following way. The unusual style of the speech is 
accounted for by its being a literary product, as Bruns ἢ con- 
vincingly proved ; secondly, in speeches in which the character 
of the opponent is treated in detail, the personality of the 
speaker falls into the background, and this accounts for the 
absence of ethos. With the fall of these arguments against the 
genuineness of XIV, the question of spuriousness may be dis- 
missed, for the point emphasized by Nowack, the absence of 
χάρις, is almost a sine qua non of invective. 

Let us now turn to a consideration of the character of the 
speech, and its relation to Isocrates XVI. 


39 Tt seems inconsistent that in the case of X, he should be disturbed 
by a parallel with the Epitaphius. 

"This might have suggested to Blass the possibility that XIV _ be- 
longed to epideictic literature. Similar phenomena in XXXI, κατὰ 
Φίλωνος, did not lead him to reject the speech. 

See see ft. “on, cit; "46;  “XLIT. * gr f. 

* 493 ff. He pointed out that, as a literary publication, XIV has no 
standard of comparison in Lysias as it would have, if the defence of 
Socrates were extant. This, of course, is a point of view with which 
I can hardly agree, since all Lysias’ work seems to me purely literary. 
Still, the fact that Bruns considered it genuine, deserves notice. 


56 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


There seems to have been a general consensus of opinion that 
XIV was actually delivered before the court,” until Hoyer” 
took the view that this speech, like Isocrates XVI, and ps. Ando- 
cides IV, is epideictic,” and that Lysias, as well as Isocrates, 
invented the facts of the case, as a background for his rhetorical 
skill. He went so far as to question whether, outside of comedy 
and rhetoric, there ever existed a son of the great Alcibiades. 

Nowack * remarked that no one would deny that XIV was 
actually delivered in court. But he substantiated this assertion 
with the utterly invalid argument that much of the knowledge 
of military affairs and of the defendant’s life presupposes a con- 
temporary as author. This serves merely to date the speech, 
and is no evidence against epideixis. Wilamowitz™ left un- 
answered the question whether or not it was used in court. 

This question is to a certain extent connected with that of the 
relation existing between this speech and Isocrates XVI, in 
which Isocrates puts into the mouth of the younger Alcibiades 
an encomium of his father. The presence of related passages ™ 
in the two led Blass to suggest that still another speech, now 
lost, served as model for them both. He believed that it is quite 
impossible to decide from the parallel passages which was 
written first. 

Nowack” thought that Lysias wrote merely in answer to 
what was being constantly written and said in behalf of the 
great Alcibiades, and not with reference to what had been 
specifically written by Isocrates. He insisted, however, that 
Isocrates published his speech in a revised form, after having 
access to that of Lysias. H. Schultze” finding what seemed to 


* Sievers, Comm. de Xen. Hellenicis, Berlin, 1833, 81, n. 30, seems to 
have regarded it as delivered by Lysias himself. “op. cit. 

He thought that the rhetoricians chose, in these cases, the form 
of devrepodoyia; this, though true of Lysias XIV (cf. 3), is not true 
of Isocrates XVI. 

* De Isocratis περὶ τοῦ ζεύγους oratione (XVI) et Lysiae κατ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου 
priore (XIV) quaestiones epicriticae, in Commentationes Ribbeckianae, 
Leipzig, 1508) 5 34 int. 

“cf. Isoc. XVI. τὸ, Τὸ f., 11, 13 f., 16, 25, with Lys. XIV. 30, 37, 31 & 
35, 32 f., 16, 24, respectively. * Comm. Ribb., 463 ff. 

τ Quaestionum Isocratearum specimen, Buxtehude, 1886. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 57 


him cross references, was compelled to assume that Lysias 
replied to Isocrates’ original draft as delivered in court, and that 
afterwards Isocrates, in answer to Lysias, revised and published 
his speech. Bruns™ went one step further, and assumed that 
Isocrates had first written the accusation against Teisias; then 
Lysias, on behalf of Archestratides, the accusation against the 
younger Alcibiades. Isocrates then rewrote his speech, pre- 
serving only enough of the case for a setting of his encomium ; 
Lysias followed suit and rewrote his speech in the form in which 
we now have it. 

A careful examination of the passages under consideration 
satisfies me that Blass was right in thinking that neither speech 
was written in direct dependence upon the other. It is un- 
questionable that Alcibiades was a favourite topic in the litera- 
ture of the day, and quite inevitable that an encomium and an 
invective referring to the same person should have many points 
of contact. The following passages are commonplaces of attack 
and defence:—Alcibiades was responsible for much good to 
Athens (Isoc. 16), also for much evil (Lys. 16) ; he advised 
the fortification of Deceleia (Isoc. 10, Lys. 30), and soon. Any 
pamphlet for or against Alcibiades would have had to touch 
upon these points, and to answer supposed objections from the 
other side. It is not so much a criticism of Isocrates 25 ff. that 
we find in 24 as a commonplace of pleading, such as is also 
found in Lysias XXX. 1. It is unnecessary to adopt Blass’ 
suggestion of a third speech as a source for these two ; the points 
of contact are, as I have tried to show, natural and inevitable. 

Isocrates XVI has been of late years generally recognized as 
an epideictic speech, if only as a revised version of one actually 
delivered.” We read in Diodorus XIII. 74, ps. Andocides IV. 

oh θι71 

* Rauchenstein thought that this speech was published in revised 
form. Blass, II, 204-209, did not agree with him, but thought that the 
first part of the speech was lost, (on this point, see the discussion under 
XVIII, n. 3) but even he admitted that this “ Epilogus im weiteren 
Sinne” belonged to the class of encomia, not to dicanic speeches. 
Schultze, Nowack, and Bruns, following Rauchenstein, believed that 
Isocrates changed it from a forensic to an epideictic production; Hoyer 


thought that Isocrates used a fictitious legal setting for his eulogy of 
Alcibiades. 


58 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


26, and Plutarch, Alcib. 12, a story to the effect that a certain 
Diomedes sent a team with Alcibiades to Olympia. Plutarch 
has drawn in part on Isocrates XVI, remarking that here 
Teisias and not Diomedes is the disputant. It seems then that 
Isocrates used the facts of a well-known case, changed the name, 
and so framed his encomium. Even though the actual case 
came up in 397 (Blass II, 205), the fictitious setting may have 
been used considerably later, and there is no proof that Isocrates 
XVI preceded Lysias XIV; the supposed date of Archestra- 
tides’ prosecution is 395/4 (Blass, 489 f.) but this is not neces- 
sarily the date of writing; no one would date the Platonic dia- 
logues from their dramatic setting. The supposition of revision 
for publication—and revision in these cases must have practi- 
cally involved rewriting—is based upon pure conjecture; the 
complicated hypothesis of Bruns is incapable of demonstration. 

He is quite right, however, in believing that Lysias XIV, as 
it stands, is unsuited to delivery in court. Only 1-15 deal with 
the facts of the case; if more space is given to them here than 
in Isocrates XVI, it is because in the speech of Lysias the back- 
ground is pure fiction. There is no other mention of the case 
in antiquity. Sections 16-22 are directed against those who for 
the father’s sake will defend the son; 23-28 are an invective 
against the younger Alcibiades;” the rest of the speech is 
directed against the father. I should suppose it quite clear, 
therefore, after the proof given by Bruns, that XIV is a literary 
production, and should agree with Hoyer that the legal back- 
ground is purely fictitious. 


* Bruns is compelled to assume, since this is not answered in Isocrates 
XVI, that these paragraphs were not found in the actually delivered 
speech. Yet it would be only natural to find some invective against 
the defendant. This fact points rather to a lack of definite connection 
between the two speeches. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 59 


XV. 


XV, κατ᾽ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου ἀστρατείας, though the title differs from 
that of the preceding speech, was written, nevertheless, as 
scholars now think, as a τριτολογία in the same case. It is not 
cited by Harpocration, but it is doubtful whether Blass is justi- 
fied in assuming definitely that he would have questioned its 
genuineness. 

Markland ἡ thought the speech a continuation of XIV ; Taylor 
in his edition agreed, but apparently abandoned this view after- 
wards, and contented himself with rejecting XV, partly because 
in some of the mss. it does not bear Lysias’ name. Reiske* 
insisted upon its genuineness, leaving undecided the question 
whether it was a devrepodoyia of XIV, or belonged to a second 
trial. Sluiter* returned to Markland’s assumption that XIV 
and XV are one continuous speech. He was the last exponent 
of this view which has since been unanimously rejected and 
repeatedly refuted in some detail.’ 

Boéckh * without stating his reason, gave it as his opinion that 
XV was probably not written by Lysias, but by a contemporary ; 
in this he was followed by Bremi.' 

Franz ° and Dobree’ believed it genuine. Hdolscher “ empha- 
sized, finally, Schomann’s” view that XIV and XV are ovrn- 
yopiar, XIV a δευτερολογία, XV a τριτολογία. He inclined to 
belief in the genuineness of XV, agreeing with Franz that the 
diction is Lysianic. 

Bake * and Falk” rejected it owing to the discrepancy be- 
tween XIV. 4 and XV. 9, and both thought the author a con- 
temporary of Lysias. So, too, Scheibe, who objected to the 


4553 ff. 7553. °557. ‘170. "566 Holscher, 85; Falk, 195. 

pease a 5. ΧΙ; 12g.) "286... "1025 230. 

8: He cited Westermann as agreeing with Bockh, “ut videtur”. 
This he took probably from the Griechische Beredsamkeit, 280, where 
both XIV and XV are bracketed. In his edition, Westermann seems 
to have given up all doubt of their genuineness. 

4 Att. Proc., 902, n. 445. “II, 282. ™”1094ff. 

* 367. Later, in his edition, also. 


60 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


similarity of passages in XIV and X'V.* As Blass pointed out, 
such passages are not mofe easily explained on the assumption 
of different authors. 

Francken™ pointed out that Bake’s objection to the dis- 
crepancy between XIV. 4 and XV. 9g is insufficient to prove 
spuriousness, since Lysias would not need to be consistent in 
speeches written for two separate clients. He himself however 
rejected XV as either entirely spurious, or as the result of work- 
ing over a genuine speech. He objected to the change from the 
third to the second person, as used of the generals (1 ff.), though 
this is really a form of repraesentatio; to what seemed to him, 
but is not actually an involved construction in 2; unneces- 
sarily, as I think, to the imperfects, ἠγανακτεῖτε and ἐδέοντο (2) ; 
finally to the use of the active ἀνακαλεῖν in 5. This verb is used, 
however, in the active, and in the sense of “ summon ”, if not to 
a court, in Herod. II]. 127, and Andoc. I. 45. The objectionable 
av in 6, deleted by Dobree, evidently found its way into the text 
by dittography. It is quite clear to my mind that this list of 
objections on the part of Francken is not valid. 

Rauchenstein,” Frohberger,” Kayser,” Jebb,” Teichmiller,” 
Thomaschik,* Baur,” Bergk ἢ did not hesitate to accept XV as 
Lysianic. 

Sittl,” Christ,” and Hoyer * regarded it as a mere excerpt of 
XIV, an idea that would have been allowed to pass in silence, 
had not Nowack * definitely refuted and rejected it. 

Blass ® pointed out that the coincidences with XIV are unim- 
portant, and that the fact that there is less rhetorical ornament 
in XV is explained by the absence of passages suitable for it. 
Still XV. 9 shows that the writer is not unversed in the use of 


* cf. XIV. 2, 3, 22 with XV. 12, 12, 8 f., respectively. 

ALOE, 237, “Tn Alcibiadem II. Suppositicia; fortasse παραπεποίηται 
ex genuina”. 

‘Namely the genetive ὑμῶν placed before ἐδέοντο, yet dependent 
upon καταψηφίσασθαί, and the difficulty of referring ἡγούμενοι to 
ἠγανακτεῖτε after the interposition of a new subject, θεσμοθέται. 

* Ν; Schweiz. Mus., 1862, 284f: “II, 11. 328: “2608 

“II, 266.) > *thesisthle 25757 2. το πα. 

Ms TE GES ABS 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 61 


rhetorical figures. What is said in XV. τὸ of Alcibiades, corre- 
sponds exactly to what is said in XIV. Blass, therefore, con- 
cluded that the speeches stand or fall together ; in consequence, 
having rejected. XIV, he was forced to reject XV. As we have 
seen, his rejection of XIV was unwarranted, so that his rejec- 
tion of XV is not of serious moment in our consideration of its 
genuineness. 

Nowack * pointed out, as Blass had already done; the absence 
of rhetorical figures in XV, but he did not accept the explana- 
tion that Blass had given. Upon this absence of rhetorical 
figures he mainly based his contention that XIV and XV were 
written by different authors. He is, nevertheless, compelled to 
admit that both were imitators of Lysias. It is not unnatural 
that charm, persuasion, and other characteristics of Lysias’ 
narratives are here lacking. There is no reason, then, to assume 
either another author, or spuriousness for XV. Thalheim* 
agreed with Nowack. Herwerden ἧ and Croiset * also rejected 
the speech. 

Bruns “ apparently thought it genuine, and also Wilamowitz,” 
who considered the possibility that it was not delivered. 

I should suggest that Lysias wrote XV as a first draft of the 
frame that was to contain the invective against Alcibiades, 
father and son. It, as wellas XIV, is a δευτερολογία, purporting 
to be delivered by a friend of Archestratides, and an enemy of 
Alcibiades (12, cf. XIV. 2 f.). The same lawsuit serves as a 
background in both. Therefore, in XIV, the interpretation of 
the defendant’s offense is emphasized; in XV, the generals are 
attacked. XV. τὸ ff. is the germ of the expanded invective 
against the son in XIV, to which was later appended the in- 
evitable invective against the father. Blass has shown that the 
attitude to Alcibiades is precisely the same in the two speeches, 
that even the same word, καταγελᾶν, is used of him in both. 
This hypothesis accounts also for the more numerous though 


Ogre, 7 all... “ Op.cit.. AAG, De Ts 409: aw J) 
*1, 34, n.9. He refers to XIV and XV as “die Reden, die wider den 


jungen Alkibiades gehalten oder doch geschrieben waren”. 


62 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


less striking similarities that caused some scholars to think XV 
an excerpt of XIV. 

It may be that the extraordinary number of speeches ascribed 
to Lysias may be in part accounted for by the publication of such 
first drafts together with his finished work. 


XVII. 


Owing to the brevity of XVII, περὶ δημοσίων ἀδικημάτων, some 
scholars have thought that a part is lost... Francken* going one 
step further, believed not only that by far the greater part of 
the speech has been lost, but that what remains is a mere epitome 
or excerpt from a genuine Lysianic speech. The judges, he 
thought, could not have understood the facts of the case, from 
hearing it in its present form. To Herwerden ἡ it seemed prob- 
able that Francken’s view was correct, yet he did not bracket 
the speech. Jebb* pointed out that each section of the narrative 
is followed by a short recapitulation (3, 4, 10) such as an 
epitomizer would have omitted, and rejected Francken’s theory, 
as did also Kayser,’ Stutzer,” Blass,’ and Nowack *; the last two 
saw in this speech an example of Lysias’ reputed conciseness 
and lucidity. Sittl,’ influenced no doubt by the absence of detail 
in the presentation of the facts of the case, called XVII an 
epilogue. 

Subjective arguments, such as have led scholars to assume 
mutilation, abbreviation, or a characteristically abbreviated type 
of speech (i. e. epilogue), can only be answered subjectively. 
There is no possibility of definite proof that XVII if delivered 
would or would not have made the case clear to the judges. If 
we assume, however, that it was a model framework upon 


*So Dobree, 235; Kayser, 329; Scheibe, ed., XLIII. 7123; 238. 
2132; ἜΘΟΣ ΣΟ ΘΟ ΠΟΙ | TON ΤΟΣ 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 63 


which speeches for use in similar cases were to be constructed 
and elaborated, the lack of detail becomes at once intelligible, 
and it is unnecessary to adopt strained theories to account for 
its genuineness. 


XVIII. 


XVIII, περὶ τῆς δημεύσεως τῶν τοῦ Νικίου ἀδελφοῦ ἐπίλογος, is 
cited by Galen XVIII. 2 (657 Kithn) as κατὰ Πολιούχου. As 
Blass pointed out,’ X VIII begins where the proof, if there were 
any, must have ended. This is, in my opinion, no sign of 
mutilation, but an indication of the purely fictitious character 
of the legal setting.” To the technicality of the case itself we 


; For the form Πολίοχος as preferable to Πολίουχος, see Blass, 523, n. I. 
523. 

* Falk, 210, thought the speech a complete ἐπίλογος; Hdlscher, 90, 
thought it a devrepodXoyia (erroneously, as Sachse, 48, pointed out). 
Most scholars have assumed mutilation. Blass believed that only the 
epideictic part of the original was published, and so came down to us. 
The beginning, as we have it, recalls those of Isocrates XVI περὶ τοῦ 
ζεύγους, XX κατὰ Aoxirov, Lysias XXI ἀπολογία δωροδοκίας ἀπαράσημος, 
and the Eroticus. Of these Isocrates XVI and the Eroticus are epideic- 
tic. For parallels between Isocrates XVI and Lysias XVIII see Blass, 
530, esp. n. 5. 

Isocrates XX, a private speech written somewhere in the years fol- 
lowing the archonship of Euclides (Blass II, 199), is clearly a sophistic 
work, unsuited for delivery. There is no need for assuming that the 
section containing proofs and testimony has been lost. The statement 
in 1 that Lochites’ conduct has been witnessed by all present, releases 
Isocrates from the necessity of adducing proof. The speech is a mere 
expatiation on the gravity of personal injury, on the potential importance 
of its evil results, and the injustice of treating unfairly a man who is 
poor and in an insignificant station. All this is the generalization 
peculiar to sophistic and epideictic work; the legal fiction is merely 
conventional setting and, in this case, the most transparent of fictitious 
backgrounds. 

Lysias XXI also lacks all exposition of the definite charge brought 
against the speaker, as well as all definite proof of innocence. From 
21 f. we know merely that he was accused of δωροδοκία. The speaker 
begins with the assumption that the judges have heard the facts of the 
case, but he wishes them to listen still further, ἕνα ἐπίστησθε περί οἵου 
τινὸς ὄντος ἐμοῦ ψηφιεῖσθε. This is the keynote of the speech. Instead of 
an encomium on a famous family, as in XVIII, we shall have an ex- 


64 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


find little more than a reference, 14. The speech up to that 
point consists of the narrative of the patriotic services of the 
general Nicias and his family. The whole, therefore, is a 
literary encomium on a famous family, a theme which gives 
opportunity for a vivid, humorous bit of description (10) and 
typically Lysianic turns of phrase and thought (15 ff., 24 f.). 

H. Schultze® pointed out the striking parallels between 
Isocrates XVI and Lysias XVIII, their similarity in style and 
composition, and was inclined to assume that “ generi ἐπιδεικτικῷ 
attribuendam esse Lysiae orationem’’. Sachse,’ who with most 
other scholars assumed the loss of the first part of the speech, 
went a step further, saying “ atque hoc equidem laudo et dico, 
orationem hanc a Lysia non esse scriptam, qualis in manibus est, 
sed ab alio genuinam orationem iterum tractatam, neque accu- 
rate factam esse”. This judgment he based partly upon his 
interpretation of the case from 14, which has found no assent- 
ing voice among scholars,’ partly upon supposed inferiority to 
other Lysianic speeches, but no other scholar, if we except 
Gleiniger,’ has failed to recognize in X VIII the work of Lysias. 


ample of Lysias’ far famed skill in ethopoiia, a speech based upon 
πίστεις ἐκ Tov ἤθους. Indeed, almost the entire speech is taken up with 
the services of the speaker to the state (1-10 and 22-24), and with 
reasons why, not only out of gratitude but for its own prosperity’s sake, 
the state should come to his assistance (II-19). In 20-21 we have a 
brief characterization of his opponents. One might almost see in this 
nameless (ἀπαράσημος) speaker, a forerunner of Aristotle’s “ Magnani- 
mous Man”, who is fully conscious of his magnanimity. The assurance 
and poise of the speaker’s character may be seen from 16-17; pride in his 
personal integrity from 19; pride in his formerly refraining to appeal 
to pity from 24. The trend οἵ the argument in 11-14 resembles that of 
XVIII; cf. esp. XVIII. 29 and XXI.13. All this, in my opinion, points 
to the fact that XXI was written as a piece of literature, not as a speech 
for use in the courts. 

*Unfortunately 14 is corrupt, and there is no agreement among 
scholars as to the actual form of accusation involved. In a case where 
interpretation depends upon emendation, we cannot expect unanimity 
of, judgment. For a discussion of the various views, cf. Blass, 525 f. 

Sop. cit., 24 ff. 40. 

τ Against Sachse, see Scholl, Jena Litztg. 1874, 678; Blass, Bursian I 
(1873), 2.73.0 Lipsius, Bursian II (1873), 1378. 

ὁ 168, n. I, where he gives as his opinion, that XVIII has been “ mehr 
oder minder stark iiberarbeitet ” without any proof of his statement. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 6 


oat 


XIX. 


Sittl* alone has expressed doubt of the genuineness of XIX, 
περὶ τῶν ᾿Αριστοφάνους χρημάτων. His arguments are based upon 
a peculiarity in the address to the judges as ὦ δικασταί in 
34, which he finds in the “ spurious ” speeches, VI κατ᾽ ’Avdoxidou 
and VIII, κακολογιῶν, but also in a speech attested by Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus, XXXII κατὰ Avoyetrovos. His suspicions were 
further roused by the φέρε which stands before πρὸς θεῶν ᾽Ολυμ- 
πίων in 34. The paucity of these arguments is patent, and they 
have been adequately refuted by Nowack.” 


ree: 5102." 


XX. 


XX, ὑπὲρ Πολυστράτου [δήμου καταλύσεως ἀπολογία] cited in 
antiquity by Harpocration,’ Photius,’ and Suidas,’ as Lysianic, 
has been generally rejected in modern times. 

Markland * suggested the possibility of spuriousness because 
Pollux VIII. 2. 9. in citing ἀπολῦσαι in the sense of ἀφεῖναι called 
the expression ἰδιωτικόν without referring to this speech of 
Lysias. Still he admitted, as an alternative, that Pollux might 
not have read the speech, or might have forgotten the passage. 
Franz’ accepted it, but dated it before 406 B. C. Τοῦτος criti- 
cized it as “crasso filo, utpote plebeio loquente ”’, yet said of it, 
“non contemnenda”. His doubt of its genuineness seems to 
have been based on the necessity of dating it early. 

Hdlscher ‘ was the first to point out that XX is a δευτερολογία, 
spoken by the son” in his father’s behalf.’ He thought it 


4s. v. Πολύστρατος. * 441. 15. ὅς, vy. Πολύστρατοςς. *683. 
“περὶ Λυσίου τοῦ ῥήτορος, 5; de locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica 
persanandis, 3; ed., 250. ° 192; 240. 95 ff. 


* Not the oldest, but the middle son (28, 29), as Sauppe noted in the 
margin of his copy of Holscher. 

*Maussac (Reiske, 663), Markland, 1. c., and Meier (Historia juris 
Attici de bonis damnatorum, Berlin, 1819, 182), had regarded it as 
dxépados. Taylor, |. c., had opposed this on the ground that Lysias 
sometimes omitted proems. 


5 


66 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


possible that XII. 3 refers only to speeches actually delivered, 
so that the early date may be no argument against the authen- 
ticity of XX, yet he rejected it on the score of the confusion in 
thought. Baiter and Sauppe bracketed it in their edition. 
Scheibe ” rejected it. 

Falk “ rejected XX because he missed, especially in the first 
half, lucidity, valid proof, and logical order of thought. He 
also considered it unlikely that Lysias should have written 
dicanic speeches as early as 410 B. C., and that one who had 
been driven from Thurii because of democratic principles, 
should defend an oligarch. Westermann” urged against its 
authenticity both the early date, i. e. 410, that had been assigned 
by Kriiger “ and the form of the speech. Bake™ rejected it 
without advancing any new arguments; so also did Herbst,” 
Pertz,” and Rauchenstein.” 

Wattenbach,* Grote,” O. Miiller,” accepted it as genuine. 

Francken ™ because of the confusion in the narrative, the lack 
of arrangement and lucidity, the supposed historical inaccura- 
cies, and the resulting difficulty in determining the status of 
the case, not only declared XX spurious, but insisted that it 
could not have been written by a contemporary of Lysias. He 
considered that the author was not an adept in classical Greek, 
judging, for the most part, from certain corrupt passages. 
Kayser ~ and Halbertsma * though with less vehemence, also 
rejected XX. 

Frankel * rejected it on the score of date alone. From Cicero, 
Brut. 12, and Lysias XII. 3, he thought it certain that before 
403 Lysias had not written speeches for others. The passage 
in Cicero has already been discussed in the preface; regarding 
XII. 3 I may say, in addition to my other references to it, that 


1° Lect. Lys., 342;\ed., LX XXIII. “XIV 3 243%. ΣΝ 

on Clinton, F. H., Ol. XCII. 3. Falk, 242, n., and Frankel, 21 re- 
futed O. Miiller’s arguments for a later date. “III, 245 ff. 

* Die Schlacht bei den Arginusen, Hamburg, 1855, 77. “13. 

τ6; cf. Annales phil. et paedag. XCI (1867), 507; Philol. Anz. IX 
(1879), 451. * De quadringentorum Athenis factione, 38 ff. 

VII, 252, nm, 382, n. 2. 2143 ff; 238) 7330, \7 44ers 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 67 


it would hardly have been possible for Lysias to admit before 
a court which he hoped to persuade, that he was a professional 
speech writer. 

Parow~ emphasized the discrepancy between 1-30 which 
include narrative and proof, and 30-36, which according to most 
scholars, are incomparably better written and much nearer 
Lysias’ real manner, and concluded that XX is the result of 
contaminatio of two speeches, but his proof of a thesis so diffi- 
cult of demonstration is wholly inadequate. 

Hoffmeister,” because he found no order or definite * dis- 
positio ’ of facts, rejected XX and subjected individual passages 
to an absurdly cavilling examination; his standard for style is 
arbitrary and unreasonable, and his method, if followed to a 
logical conclusion, would end in the rejection of virtually all 
Lysianic speeches. In opposition to him, Kirchner ἢ recalled 
the fact that the text of XX is in a worse condition than that of 
any speech, unless we except VIII, and outlined the speech in 
proof that it is not devoid of a plan. He thought, however, that 
some transposition has taken place, and that 13-15 originally 
intervened between 2 and 3. He answered Francken’s and 
Hoffmeister’s objections to points of syntax and style and con- 
cluded that XX is a genuine but youthful work of Lysias. 
Blass * in his review, disproved Kirchner’s theory of transposi- 
tion, and, while admitting the justice of his replies to Francken 
and Hoffmeister, nevertheless maintained that XX is spurious. 
Kayser * also rejected Kirchner’s conclusion. 

F. A. Miiller,” Hentschel,” Hug,” all rejected the speech. 
Gleiniger * thought that it has been more or less worked over. 


*op.cit. “op. cit. ™ De vicesima Lysiae oratione, Ohlau, 1873. 

* Bursian 1 (1873), 273 ff. 

# Phil. Anz. [IX (1878), 451 f. He quoted Ril, Berliner Gymnasial- 
schrift, 1871, 775, as regarding XX as an epitome of a genuine speech. 
Against this view, he advanced two invalid arguments :—the date, and 
Lysias’ democratic principles. The latter is invalid because a speech- 
wright could hardly choose his clients for their political persuasions, 
and if the speech is, as I hope to show, epideictic, the political prin- 
ciples of the speaker could not affect the question of authorship. 

τὰ all Ὁ * Jena Litztg., 1876, 635. ™ 168, n. 1. 


68 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


Thalheim “ urged against it the puerile arguments used in 5, 7, 
16, the inability to express thoughts in periods, the verbal repe- 
titions, and the lack of arrangement. 

Rohl * thought it an epitome, a view that Albrecht ἡ investi- 
gated at some length in an attempt to prove it correct by pointing 
out resemblances between X and XI. Stutzer * also defended 
this theory, and advanced in proof the absence of formulae of 
address in the supposedly epitomized parts, the many ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενα “ grammatical peculiarities, faulty composition, exces- 
sive antitheses, and the fact that, in spite of its brevity of 
expression, repetitions occur. Both Albrecht and Stutzer — 
thought the original speech genuine, and Pretzsch™ adopted 
their view. Pohl” while rejecting the speech, proved, by quot- 
ing parallels from Antiphon and Andocides to the expressions 
not consistent with Lysianic usage, that from style there is no 
evidence for the theory that XX is a late epitome. 

Landweer,” Frohberger-Gebauer,” Giilde,” Sittl,* all rejected 
XX. 

Blass “ objected to any attempt at transposition and to the 
explanation of the speech as an epitome, in order to account for 
its obscurity. The lack of logical development, confusion in 
detail, intricacy of expression, the absence of convincing power, 
all persuaded him of the spuriousness of XX. The character 
of the sentence structure confirmed his conviction. Yet the 
absence of figures, and the naturalness and truth of many of 
the turns (cf. esp. 10 and 17) he admitted, are Lysianic. In 
rejecting the speech he seems to have relied somewhat on the 
early date to which it is assigned. 

Jebb “ believed XX to be probably spurious. Baur “ rejected 
it, and was inclined to regard the whole speech as a fiction based 


* Die Rede fiir Polystratos (Lysias) XX, Breslau, 1876. He brackets 
the speech in his edition. _™ Zeits. f£. Gymn. XXXI (1877), 13. 

* op. cit. Rohl, Zeits. f. Gymn. XX XIII (1879), 44 f., thought Albrecht 
went too far in making the same excerptor responsible for XI and XX, 
and in considering the original speech genuine. 

τ 545 ff.; cf. Philol. Rundschau, 1882, 8 ff. “cf. Albrecht, 59. 38. 

* op. cit., esp. ΠΡ 9 470, πο. 4r ἢ ΠῚ 

"238%. “208 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 69 


upon the well-known events of the time. Bergk,” inspired by 
the excellence of the peroratio, suggested that Polystratus’ son 
wrote the speech and that it was later revised by Lysias, who 
added 30-36. Gilbert“ cited it as genuinely Lysianic. Weid- 
ner * and Nowack ™ rejected it. 

Wilamowitz * assumed the spuriousness of XX, and thought 
it the work of a λογοποιός less well trained than Lysias, pub- 
lished only on account of the “ renommée ” of the speaker and 
his family. The speech, published with omission of what was 
detrimental or unnecessary for the fulfilment of this purpose, 
was preserved by chance, and made its way into the Lysianic 
corpus through the stupidity of the collector. Wilamowitz 
admitted that no laws should be laid down for the composition 
of XX, but he felt that the virtual repetition of 6-8 in 16-17 15 
inadmissible, and demanded an explanation why the substance 
of 1-10 is repeated in 13-17. Therefore he concluded that what 
we know as XX is really parts of two speeches :—the former, 
1-10, delivered by a man of some importance,” perhaps a friend 
of Polystratus, the second by the son. But his grounds for this 
assumption are inadequate, and I do not agree with his conten- 
tion that the καίτοι at 11 is an impossible transition. If there 
is really a distinct difference in tone before and after 10, it is 
reasonable enough that the son should speak rather formally and 
impersonally at first, and later adopt a more personal tone. 

Finally, Herwerden™ and Croiset “ rejected XX. 

I have purposely omitted from this discussion all considera- 
tion of the legal aspect of XX, since scholars are utterly at 
variance about it. Accounts of the history of the Four Hun- 
dred, in what remains to us of contemporary writings, vary 
so considerably that it is quite impossible to determine with 
certainty the actual course of events. The ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία has 
added fuel to the blaze, but no light. 

Saat. “op, cit., 353. ~ 6. 6c.) ) MT 256 &. 

“From 5 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἡγοῦμαι... .. πάσχειν; 10, δεινὸν δέ μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι. 
The ethos of the latter might be petulance, indignation; it 15 rather 


too common and uncoloured a phrase to be a test of ethos. 
[2] Pa ον» 
153. 449, τ. I. 


7O SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


As I have attempted to show, in answer to Frankel, the early 
date does not disprove the possibility of Lysianic authorship, 
though it may explain the presence of characteristics of epi- 
deixis in the more restricted sense, such as repetitions and arti- 
ficial sentence structure, lack of logical coherence, and weakness 
in the arguments. The state of the text is obviously responsible 
in part for the confusion and the obscurity. 

The indifference to technicalities of law, and the omission of 
any very definite facts about the legal nature of the case led 
Baur to suggest that XX is a mere fiction with a historical back- 
ground. Wilamowitz, in order to explain this, suggested that 
publication had involved the corresponding omissions. I should 
think it likely that Lysias here made one of his first attempts at 
dicanic epideixis. This view may also to some extent account 
for the obscurity of the speech. 

30-36 have been generally regarded as not unworthy of 
Lysias. It may be that the speech was published without revi- 
sion. Blass admitted that the merits of XX are Lysianic; we 
perhaps see more shortcomings, since our criterion of style is 
necessarily derived from Lysias’ more mature products. In 
any case, summary rejection is unjustifiable. 


XXII. 


The genuineness of XXII, κατὰ τῶν σιτωπωλῶν, has only twice 
been called into question." The arguments advanced against it 
by Hecker * were so thoroughly refuted by Rauchenstein * that 
they need not be considered further. Francken* thought it 
Lysianic, “sed fortasse ex recentiore recensione”. He com- 


* Nowack, 102, citing XXII as genuine, quotes as its only detractors 
except for Benseler, Jacobs, add. animadv. in Athen. 262, and Bremi, 
444. This is obviously an error. It was the fourth speech (q. v.) that 
Jacobs and Bremi regarded as spurious. 

7 op. cit., 7.  *Zeits. f. d. Altswiss. VII (1849), 352. *160; 236. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS ΧΙ 


mented upon the form ἐλεύσεσθαι" in 11, and saw possible evi- 
dence of a late recension in the fact that after we have the 
accusation admittedly complete in 7, a new point should be 
brought up against the merchants. But we must notice that in 
7, ταύτην THY κατηγορίαν refers strictly to what has preceded, and 
does not exclude the possibility of additional charges. It is, 
moreover, difficult to see in 17, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐμπόρους συνίστασθαι 
and 21 τοὺς ἐμπόρους ἐφ᾽ ods (X ois) οὗτοι συνέστησαν more than 
an iteration, from a different point of view, of the general 
charge. 

The questions and answers in 5, the introduction of Anytus, 
—whom Thalheim unnecessarly distinguishes from the Anytus 
of Lysias XIII and Plato’s Apology,—the humour in 15, all 
suggest an element of epideixis. 


5 Rutherford, New Phrynichus, London, 1881, 110 f., opposing Lobeck 
and Elmsley, regards this very passage as evidence that the form was 
Sena etic, The paradigm represents ἐλεύσομαι as correct Attic in the 
moods. 

5 Adams, ad loc., admits the possibility that this is the Anytus who 
was well known as one of Socrates’ accusers. The only argument to 
the contrary might be the date which most scholars set at 387/6, either 
shortly before or after the peace of Antalcidas. But 14 and 15 from 
which the speech is dated, apply equally well to the last years of the 
Peloponnesian War. The battle of Arginusae did not clear the sea of 
Lacedaemonians. σπονδὰς ἀπορηθήσεσθαι, if a definite historical interpre- 
tation be demanded for the benefit of realism, may quite well refer to 
the rejection by Cleophon of Sparta’s offer of peace, immediately after 
that battle (cf. Aesch. II. 76, and Aristophanes’ Peace 667 for a similar 
phrase). A possible reference to the summary execution of the gen- 
erals who survived, in the suggestion of speakers in the senate to put 
the retailers to death untried (2), confirms an early date, 406 B. C. 
It is noteworthy that the speech is against the corndealers as a body, 
though the questions in 5 are addressed to an individual. 

XII. 3 will hardly be urged against an early date for an epideictic 
speech, nor, indeed, could it be fairly urged as an obstacle to anything 
but Lysias’ actual appearance as a pleader, before 403. Even then, a 
statement in an oration can scarcely be accepted as strictly autobio- 
graphical. 


72 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


AXA: 


Dobree * quoted Hemsterhusen as having hesitated to admit 
the genuineness of XXIII, κατὰ Παγκλέωνος. Francken, how- 
ever, pointed out that the scholar who expressed his doubt in 
Misc. Obs. Amstel. t. VII, 319, was not Hemsterhusen, as the 
appended initials J. E. prove. Francken,’ while insisting that 
the speech is Lysianic, thought it an epitome, because he found 
the “ nexus sententiarum non optimus, et plena expositio causae 
desideratur ”. But the “ sententiae ” are in no case more than 
obvious deductions from obvious testimony, and the “ ex- 
positio”” of the case in hand, i.e. of the zapaypagy, is clear 
enough. The details of the original grievance in the case pre- 
viously brought before the polemarch would be irrelevant. 
Further, Francken objected to the phrase καί μοι ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ, 
as not elsewhere found in Lysias, and unsuited to the brevity 
of the speech, and saw in it the work of another hand.  Sittl,* 
also, because of this unusual formula, questioned the genuine- 
ness of XXIII.* Stutzer,’ Jebb,° Blass,’ and Nowack* rejected 
Francken’s theory. Blass pointed out especially that lengthy 
announcements of the testimony of the witnesses’ found here, 
as in XVII, would have been omitted by the epitomizer. Weare 
fully justified, therefore, in regarding XXIII, in its present 
form, as genuinely Lysianic. 


Bane SOAR Ros Ce τὸ 

*Wilamowitz, II, 360, Canina the repeated references to the water 
clock by the fact that Lysias had only a short time for the obvious 
reason that this preliminary trial was separated from the real trial. But 
in 1 and 11, Lysias says he will make no long story of a short one. 
Perhaps the repetition of the phrase (witnesses are called five times in 
the course of the speech) is consonant with Lysias’ inverted humour, a 
jest, punctuating with emphasis the short time needed for completing 
the case against Pancleon. That Lysias held the brief, whether real or 
fictitious, for the winning side is unquestionable, since Pancleon had 
failed to put in his appearance in his suit of ψευδομαρτυριῶν against 
Aristodikos. °499. °304. ‘620. Tomes 

*This announcement of the testimony, which usually consists of a 
brief capitulation of its contents, points to the literary production. The 
testimony thus becomes unnecessary for a comprehension of the case, 
from the reader’s point of view, while in a court of justice, it would 
be strange if the testimony of the witness should be thus anticipated 
by either plaintiff or defendant. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 73 


XXIV. 


XXIV, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου, is attested by Suidas;* it is men- 
tioned as Lysianic by Harpocration, and only in recent years 
have modern scholars been inclined to question its genuineness. 
To Dobree,’ who quoted Hemsterhusen as assigning the speech 
to Lysias, it seemed not only an “ oratio minime contemnenda ”, 
but also “ acuta, nitida’’. Bockh, in his Staatshaushaltung der 
Athener spoke of it as a mere μελέτη that was never delivered, 
but nowhere rejected it as spurious, although most modern 
scholars quote him as denying its genuineness.’ That a speech 
may be genuine, and yet neither suited not intended for delivery 
in the courts, we have already seen.” To Bergk,’ who attempted 
a refutation of Bodckh’s judgment, the speech seemed well 
adapted for actual pleading, also to Bremi,’ Falk,’ Gleiniger,” 
and Blass,” who classified it as a “ bagatelle”’ speech, and re- 
marked that productions of this type were all regarded as 
spurious by the ancient critics ;* he nevertheless regarded it as 
genuine, and hesitated to say with Bockh that it is unsuited to 


1Suidas, 5. v. ἀνάπηρον᾽ Λυσίας ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ διδομένου τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις 
ὀβολοῦ. 

2 Harpocration, 5. v. ἀδύνατοι, ἔστι δὲ καὶ λόγος τις, ὡς λέγεται, Λυσίου περὶ 
τοῦ ἀδυνάτου, ἐν ᾧ ὡς ὀβολὸν λαμβάνοντος μέμνηται. Dindorf reads as 
above, inserting the ὡς λέγεται from B ( ἃ H. Bekker omits these 
words. Blass quotes, omitting λέγεται. Even with the reading ὡς 
λέγεται, we can hardly say that Harpocration questioned the genuineness 
of the speech. It seems rather as if he had heard of the existence of 
such a speech, but had seen no manuscript of it. To read ὡς without 
λέγεται is taking an unnecessary liberty with the mss. readings, and one 
not to be defended by Harpocration, 5. v. ἐγγυθήκη. *192; 246. 

41,2, 309 n. “ Diese Rede ist iibrigens in einem so possirlichen Ton 
verfasst, dass ich sie fiir eine blosse Ubungsrede halte, die nicht vorge- 
tragen wurde; wenigstens hatten die Athener sich héchlich verwundern 
miissen iiber die Spasshaftigkeit dieses um Sold flehenden Menschen”. 

*Gleiniger, 168; Scheibe, ed. LXXXIV; Blass, 637; Nowack, 102; 
Bruns, 461 f.; Herwerden, 175; Worpel, op. cit.; Motschmann, op. cit. ; 
Christ, 388, n. 4. ‘cf. speeches IV, VI, VIII, XIV, XV. " 

Jb. f. Philol. LXV (1852), 302, approved by Max Frankel ad Bockhi 
locum, II, 68, ἢ, 453. °245. °277. “168f. “638 ff. y 

12 Jebb, 255, points out that Athenaeus, V. 200 f. refers to περὶ τῆς 
ἐγγυθήκης as ascribed to Lysias, acquiescing, apparently, in the ascription. 


74 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


delivery. He thought it impossible to decide what style of 
speech Lysias would refuse to write or the court to hear. 

Rosenberg * doubted whether it was a fortunate idea to 
represent the speaker of Lysias XXIV in his peculiar ethos, 
“wenn die Rede itberhaupt mehr als eine blosse Ubungsrede 
gewesen ist”’, and indeed the invalid’s character, though not 
calculated to hoodwink any but a most simple-minded jury, is 
excellent in a μελέτη, as a humorous sketch. Mahaffy “ thought 
that the speech is genuine and not only that it was delivered in 
court, but “that it gains or loses almost all its point by the 
delivery ”. It is impossible to agree with this last assertion. 
The literary value of XXIV is, as I shall have opportunity to 
repeat, independent of its delivery and incontestable. Bruns "ἢ 
was the first, therefore, of the moderns to reject the speech 
outright. He believed with Bockh that it is a μελέτη. His con- 
clusions have been rejected by Worpel,” Motschmann,” and 
Adams,” but their refutations of his arguments are not alto- 
gether adequate or convincing. It will be worth while, there- 
fore, to examine them in some detail. 

The two main arguments advanced by Bruns against the 
genuineness of the speech serve, as we shall see, only to empha- 
size the probability that it was written as a μελέτη. In the first 
place, he objects to the violent accusations against the plaintiff 
in 2, 10, 13, 14, and 18, from which we get no picture of his 
character, and which are inappropriate to the triviality of the 
case. Furthermore, the defendant ascribes to the plaintiff 
various inconsistent motives (2, 3, 18). Bruns’ second argu- 
ment is based upon the comic role played by the speaker from 
beginning to end, his evasion of the accusations brought 
against him, and his failure to prove his case.” 

In answer to the first argument, it is my opinion that all of 
these traits serve to emphasize the ethos of the speaker. An 


* Phil. Anz. V (1873), 456. 

* €46- $4) Gry yep νοι ne Ops lel 2, te 

* His objection to the proem as similar to that of XVI, (i. e. copied 
from it) but not suitable to XXIV, has been refuted by Worpel. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 75 


additional sketch of the plaintiff would have interfered with the 
artistic unity of the piece. As for the variety and incon- 
sistency of the motives assigned to the plaintiff, this also may 
be set down to the ethos of the invalid; moreover, we have a 
parallel in III, zpos Σίμωνα, where the speaker quotes various 
and inconsistent motives for his own previous inaction.” The 
comic role of the speaker, moreover, is no proof of spuriousness, 
but possibly an indication of the fictitious character of the 
speech.” 

That Bruns’ arguments are conclusive against any view of 
XXIV as a sober defence, Adams admitted, but added, “ they 


* He speaks of shame in 3 and 9, and immediately afterwards in 9, 
of fear of ridicule; in 31, of fear of publicity, and in 40, of desire to 
avoid, if not hostility between himself and his opponent, at least the 
exile that was hanging over one of them. The element of caricature in 
XXIV accounts for the greater variety and lack of consistency in the 
motives there quoted. 

“In order to account for the intrusion of this speech into the Lysianic 
corpus, Bruns depends upon his theory of ethopoiia. He assumes that 
Lysias never objectively creates a character, but throws himself, as it 
were, into his client’s boots, and becoming the client himself, writes, 
literally, the client’s own speech. (So, for instance, like Devries, 
Ethopoiia in Lysias, Baltimore, 1892, he regards Euphiletus in I as an 
honest, guileless, misused man. Other scholars detect a note of pathos 
in XXIV. All this shows that Lysias’ characters, like those of a modern 
novel, are capable of various interpretations.) Bruns argues that too 
clever ethopoiia would have made the judge aware of the logographer 
behind the speech, and so prejudiced him unfavourably, but if speech 
writing was a well-known practice, this argument falls, even if the prac- 
tice were, among literary men, in ill repute. Again, he believes, that 
Lysias may put into the mouth of his client (cf. I. 32) arguments of 
which the reasoning and the arrangement could not possibly originate 
with the client, simply because they were right and effective. That this 
is inconsistent with the preceding point, and his general theory of 
ethopoiia, is obvious. It seems almost as if Bruns falls into the class 
of scholars mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (de Lysia 8), who 
fail to realize that Lysias’ artlessness is artful. But to return to XXIV: 
the writer of this speech, according to Bruns, admiring the living char- 
acters in Lysias’ speeches, failing to understand his method of ethopoiia, 
and believing that he worked in these cases like a comic poet, who lets 
a character go through an unbroken soliloquy in a quarrel scene, upon 
this supposition wrote XXIV, supposedly in the Lysianic manner. (X, 
κατὰ Θεομνήστου a’, he believes, as we have seen, is a less successful 
example of this imitation.) This hypothesis falls, of course, with the 
fall of Bruns’ theory of ethopoiia. Lysias can always be seen behind 
the client, the light that “ illumes the grinning pumpkin’s head”. Typical 
Lysianic inversions occur in most varied speeches, uttered by characters 
of various types. 


76 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


do not meet the theory that the speech is a humorous parody, 
written for the actual use of a notoriously odd character, for 
whom there was really no plea except his own comical person- 
ality”. Here Adams seems to take as ambiguous a view as 
Blass, who regarded XXIV as a “ bagatelle ” speech, and yet 
as one that was actually delivered. That a “ humorous parody ” 
is not suitable for a defendant’s speech in court, under any 
circumstances, that the “ comical personality ” of the speaker 
could not, in any court of justice, be presumed upon to take the 
place of argument, that the speech emphasizes the weakness 
of the defendant’s case, all this shows that it was a literary 
exercise, not written for delivery. Lysias’ attitude to the speech 
and its premises is, in my judgment, ironical, as is that of 
Euripides to the premises of his plays and to his plays them- 
selves (Wilamowitz, N. J. XXIX (1912), 460). From the 
mock emphasis on the amount of the pension we may imagine 
this a satire written after the passage of the New Pension Law, 
which was made after the end of the war, reducing the pension 
from two obols to one, but still insisting on an annual δοκιμασία 
(22,26). 

Baur,” Worpel,* Motschmann,” all believed that the speech is 
genuine, and was actually used in court. So, apparently, did 
Nowack.” Worpel, however, is the only critic who advanced 
arguments against the theory that it is a μελέτη. It could not, 
he thought, be a μελέτη, because the case is so clear against the 
defendant, and, moreover, because it is impossible, in his 
opinion, to have a historical background” for an epideictic 
speech, since the rhetoricians preferred subjects taken from 
mythology. If the speech is a mere exercise, then, according 


7 5.345 ἘΠ ΟΡ ΟἿ: 

“op. cit. Motschmann’s attempt to prove that Lysias’ characters are 
all types is of questionable value and more questionable truth. Once 
a character has been drawn with some fidelity to life—perhaps even 
with a dash of caricature—he becomes the prototype of a type. One 
cannot but remember, in connection with this invalid, Dickens’ man with 
the wooden leg, Silas Wegg. Neither was ever anything but a literary 
figure, yet both are perfectly individualized. 

ΟΣ: *° See 25. The pension law is, of course, historical. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 77 


to Worpel, it is a wretched piece of work on the part of a frigid 
sophist. 

The fact that the case is clearly against the defendant points 
in the opposite direction. The clever Lysias would hardly write 
speeches for his clients which clearly put or left them in the 
wrong. Purely historical subjects are treated in epideictic 
speeches as in Isocrates’ oration for the younger Alcibiades 
(XVI), in Lysias’ speeches on the other side, (XIV, XV), in 
Lysias VI, against Andocides, and, to some extent, in the 
Epitaphii. The question of use in court cannot fairly be said 
to affect its literary value. What a “ frigid sophist ” would 
write as an exercise, Lysias could not write for a client. [am 
therefore of the opinion that XXIV is genuinely Lysianic, and 
at the same time, epideictic. 


ἘΚ ΧΟΝ ΠῚ 


Francken* has been the only scholar * to question the genuine- 
ness of XXVII, κατ᾽ ᾿Επικράτους [καὶ τῶν συμπρεσβευτῶν ἐπίλογος, 
ὡς Θεόδωρος]. His objections, based partly on supposed peculiar- 
ities in diction, partly on the parallel passages in XXX, κατὰ 
Νικομάχου, and XX VII, which led him to the conclusion that the 
author of XXVII was a late imitator, were opposed by Kayser * 
and Blass,‘ and refuted in considerable detail by Hentschel.’ 

The indefiniteness of the accusation and the obscurities that 
render interpretation of the case difficult have suggested many 
questions to scholars which, however, they have answered in 
various ways. Francken cut the knot and rejected the speech. 
Herwerden " acquiesced in this rejection. Ho6lscher thought it 

* 194 ff ; 238, “ rhetoris recentioris”. 

* Nowack refers to Schémann, 584, where, however, although XXX, 
κατὰ Νικομάχου, is suspected, there is no mention of XXVII. 5.412, 


*450, n. I. Blass points out that Hentschel’s objection to μέρει τῶν 
ἀδικημάτων in 6, is groundless. Sop. cit., 26 ff. "104 f. 


78 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


an éridoyos, delivered by the last of several accusers. In this, 
he was followed by Falk,’ Scheibe,’ Francken,“ Baur.” Blass, 
who first ἡ thought it a SevrepoAoyta, later “ left undecided the 
question whether it is an ἐπίλογος in the sense used above, or a 
mere peroration, but inclined to the latter view. 

Hamaker “ thought that X XVII in its present form is the 
result of a contaminatio, such as Wilamowitz saw in XX, of 
two Lysianic speeches, the first sentence of 1, together with 9 
from πῶς γάρ to the end, being the original peroration of an 
accusation against Epicrates, and the remainder from one held 
“in logistas vel euthynos, quum magistratus sui rationem red- 
derent”. Scheibe” and Francken”™ attacked his arguments ; 
against them, Parow ἢ defended Hamaker’s view with a slight 
modification in detail. Hentschel” gave the final blow to this 
theory, and it has not been revived. 

Kayser,” Hentschel,” Thalheim* think XXVII merely the 
peroratio of the original, and that the entire first part has been 
lost. It seems to me that an answer to this question must be 
more or less subjective. If καταδιῶξαι cited by Bekker, Anecdota 
103. 11, from Avotas* κατὰ ᾿Επικράτους is not found in XXVII, 
there is as much reason to assume that there were two speeches 
against Epicrates,” as that the greater part of one has been lost. 

Scholars disagree on the question of the actual charge brought 
against Epicrates. That he is identical with the Epicrates men- 
tioned in Dem. XIX. 227 is generally assumed, though Baur * 
opposed this view and Blass ™ held out against it. Most scholars, 
among them Blass, think Epicrates was accused of theft and 
accepting bribes. To me it seems more probable that Thal- 


7x10. The words καὶ τῶν συμπρεσβευτῶν ἐπίλογος, added in the title 
by a late grammarian, Theodorus, are of little value. * 306 

®Vind. Lys., 95; ed, LXXXV, “deuterologia est”. According to 
Blass, 454, he assumes the loss of the preceding part in δά", LXXXIII. 
In ed.2, LXXXIII, he assumes the mutilation of XVIII and XXI. Is 
not Blass in error? * 204. “387 f. *™ Annales liter. Jenenses 1874, 15. 

Baca. γῆ Vind. Lys., 04 ff. 202. “42 ff. = aos 

751 ff. His arguments are not decisive. ™ XLVII. 

2 \Ve know of two speeches against Alcibiades, two against Andocides, 
two against Diogenes (cf. Blass, 366), and two for Iphicrates (cf. Dion. 
of Hal. de Lysia 2a) orci 45 oor. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 79 


heim’s “ view that the case is identical with the one on the false 
embassy mentioned in Demosthenes, is correct.” Only I should 
think that Lysias never wrote for the actual trial, but composed 
XXVII as a demonstration against the δημαγωγοί mentioned in 
10," of whom Epicrates was obviously one,” taking advantage 
of the opportunity offered by Epicrates’ trial for the false 
embassy. This accounts for the assumption in 1 that the accusa- 
tion on the charge of the false embassy has been completed, and 
the end of the speech, 16, seems to show knowledge of Epicrates’ 
escape from the sentence, which, as we know from Dem. XIX. 
277, was passed upon him. 

Whether Lysias’ other speech against Epicrates, thus 
assumed, dealt with the direct accusation in this trial, it is impos- 
sible to say. He might have used as a background the previous 
lawsuit against him, mentioned in 4, to which Hentschel,” 
following Francken, referred Plutarch Vit. Pelop. 30. It is 
likely, also, that we should find some characterization of Epic- 
rates, which is entirely lacking in XX VII, where a class of men, 
rather than the individual, is attacked. 


με Γ J. (1878), 553 ff; ed., XLVIII. 

* He points out the striking coincidence of dates, and the probability 
that Theodorus added καὶ τῶν συμπρεσβευτῶν to the title if he found it 
in 1, rather than that ἐν inserted it in both places, and then omitted it 
in 16. Blass, 453, n. 1, objects to the form of the word, instead of 
συμπρέσβεων, but συμπρεσβευτήν occurs in Aesch. I. 168. 

* Dem. XIX. 277 speaks of Epicrates in the following terms, ἀνὴρ. 
σπουδαῖος καὶ πολλὰ χρήσιμος τῇ πόλει Kal τῶν ἐκ Πειραιῶς καταγαγόντων 
τὸν δῆμον καὶ ἄλλως δημοτικός. XXVII seems to be an attack precisely 
upon his strong point of defence. In 10, οὐκ ἀγαθῶν δημαγωγῶν is the 
reverse of Demosthenes’ picture. Theophrastus (Jebb-Sandys ed., 
152) makes his man of oligarchic disposition say, πότε παυσόμεθα ὑπὸ τῶν 
λειτουργιῶν καὶ τριαρχιῶν ἀπολλύμενοι; Kal ws μισητὸν τὸ τῶν δημαγωγῶν 
γένος. ™cf. Harp.s. ν. ᾽᾿Επικράτη. ™10f. 


80 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


XXVIII. 


The genuineness of XXVIII, κατὰ ’EpyoxAéous* [’Eidoyos | 
has been questioned only by 511, who thought it strange that 
Lysias should attack a friend of Thrasybulus the Stirian, and 
objected, furthermore, to the address, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, as used 
to the judges here and in VI. Nowack,’ however, pointed out 
that the same form of address is used repeatedly, in XII (69), 
XIII (3,8, 15, 18, 43, 93 twice), XX VII {π 8) Ὁ 
Ὁ, 11), and explained, in addition, that no definite rule can be 
laid down for Lysias’ use of such formulae. 

Lysias wrote a speech κατὰ Θρασυβούλου," in all probability 
against the Stirian.’ As Thrasybulus never returned to Athens 
after the expedition of 390 B. C., the speech may have been, 
like those against Andocides and Alcibiades, merely a literary 
work, introducing the character of a prominent man into a 
background of fictitious arraignment.” 


*Ergocles himself is not mentioned in Xenophon’s account of the 
expedition, Hell. IV. 8. 25-30, but is probably to be identified with the 
one mentioned by Demosthenes (XIX, 180) as one of a series of gen- 
erals, condemned for injury to Athenian interests in the Hellespont. 
Even so, it is unnecessary to assume that XXVIII was written for 
actual use. There-is no reason why Lysias should not have written a 
purely literary piece, on the occasion of a notorious trial. 

zero TOR: 

*Mentioned by Harpocration four times without comment, s. vv. 
᾿Αναξίβιος, ἐπιθέτους ἐορτάς, Σεύθης, Στρούθης ; four times with εἰ γνήσιος, 
s. vv. Δικαιόπολις, ᾿Ισμηνίας, Πολύστρατος, Πύρρα. * Blass, 456. 

ὁ This assumption is at least as well founded as that of spuriousness. 
cf. Blass, 448, n. 2, “ Sauppe halt mit H6lscher die Rede κατὰ Θρασυβούλου 
fiir eine spatere Deklamation ”. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 81 


XXIX. 


The fashion of seeing in every speech an epitome,—a fashion 
justly decried by Nowack,’—led Francken* to see in XXIX 
κατὰ Φιλοκράτους [’Ezidoyos] a possible epitome of an unques- 
tionably Lysianic speech. His theory has found no approval. 
His only ground for it is what seems to him a lack of transition 
between 4 and 5. Asa matter of fact, a careful reading shows 
the intimate connection between the arguments advanced in 
3 and 4 to prove that Philocrates had some of Ergocles’ money, 
and the two possible lines of defence opened to him in 5. Phi- 
locrates may prove that he did not have the money, or that 
Ergocles was unjustly condemned ; otherwise he is, ipso facto, 
guilty. The reasoning is concise, logical, uninterrupted. The 
genuineness of XXIX has never been questioned. 

The absence of testimony and proof convinced Blass ἢ that 
the word ἐπίλογος appended to the title is correct; that, like 
XXVIII, this was written for, and delivered by the last of 
several prosecutors appointed by the state. If we are to believe 
that the speech was actually delivered, it is difficult to discover in 
I anything but evidence that all the other accusers had dropped 
out,’ and in that case they could certainly not have been συνήγοροι. 
I cannot see why the speaker, as Blass objects in answer to 
Francken’s view that this was the only speech against Phi- 
locrates, cannot have been responsible for the ἀπογραφῇ because 
of the words in I, κἀμοὶ δοκεῖ οὐδενὸς ἔλαττον εἶναι τεκμήριον τῆς 
ἀπογραφῆς ὅτι ἀληθὴς οὖσα τυγχάνει. The ἐπίλογος in the mss. was 
probably inserted by a grammarian who found no other way of 
accounting for the absence of testimony and proof.’ But it is 
not necessary in order to maintain belief in its genuineness, to 
call a speech, because it is without proof and testimony, either 


300%, 238; 228, *460, “ct. \Krancken, 226. 

*For similar reasons it has been inserted in the titles of XVIII, 
XXVII and XXVIII. But it is not necessary to lay stress upon this. 
Scholl, 17, merely voices the general attitude of scholars when he says 
that it is impossible to put any faith in the traditional titles. 


6 


82 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


an epitome or an ἐπίλογος. It is, in my opinion, simply an epi- 
deictic speech of the type of Isocrates’ ἀμάρτυρος, written on the 
lines of τὸ εἰκός without the frankness about this type of argu- 
ment that we find in Antiphon, Tetralogy I. The beginning 
of the proem, I, is simply a commonplace of background which 
gives an opportunity for the rather sophistic conclusion that 
Lysias draws from it. Finally, as I have previously pointed out, 
it seems strange that συνήγοροι should need to hire writers of 
their speeches. 


XXX. 


XXX, κατὰ Nixopdyov’ [Tpapparéws εὐθυνῶν κατηγορία], is cited 
once by Harpocration’* with the familiar reservation, εἰ γνήσιος. 
He uses the patronymic Νικομαχίδης, however, which we find 
used once in the speech itself.’ 

In the judgment of Dobree* it is “ acerba et acuta, subinde 
vehemens ”’, though less “ eleganter scripta”’ than XX VII and 
XXVIII. Hamaker’ was the first to suggest that the form of 
XXX is due to mutilation, though he suggested as an alternative 
that it may be a συνηγορία. He considered what remained merely 
the epilogue of the original speech, and accounted in this man- 
ner for the obscurity of the case and the difficulty of its explana- 
tion. Scheibe,° however, defended it as not “ manca et mutila ”’, 
but “integra ’’, accounting for the obscurity by the inadequacy 
of modern as compared with contemporary knowledge of 
Athenian affairs. 


*s. ν. ἐπιβολή. 

ΣΕῸΓ a list of various suggested identifications of this Nicomachus 
with others of the same name, see Gilde, 1 f. 

7§11. Taylor, 835 f., censured Meursius (Jan de Meurs) for not 
identifying with XXX the speech cited by Harpocration; modern 
scholars have unanimously accepted the citation as referring to this 
speech. ness. ΒΟ ΝΠ. 1Εγ5., 104 ff 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 83 


The first doubt of genuineness was expressed by Francken,’ 
who, however, considered the style Lysianic, and, on the whole, 
contented himself with explaining “ historical discrepancies ” 
by the assumption that the author was a clever speechwright 
rather than an honest man. To Frankel,* it seemed unques- 
tionably genuine. Schémann” expressed a doubt, finding im- 
probable or incredible many statements that, contrary to Lysias’ 
usual manner (Dion. de Lysia 18), are not ἐτυμοῖσιν ὁμοῖα. The 
speech, he thought, was never delivered in court, nor ever 
written for that purpose, but was published by an enemy of 
Nicomachus in the form of a legal speech. Whether Lysias 
wrote it for himself or for another, SchOmann did not deter- 
mine, but Harpocration’s εἰ γνήσιος suggested to him the possi- 
bility, at least, of spuriousness. Gleiniger “ held that this speech, 
among others, has been more or less worked over, but gave no 
evidence in confirmation of his view. 

Frohberger,” to whom Schémann™ had recommended close 
study of XXX, followed Sauppe in thinking it a δευτερολογία, 
though he admitted that there is no evidence for believing that a 
speech against Nicomachus preceded this. 

Albrecht” and Stutzer™ both expressed the opinion that 
XXX is an epitome, but without giving reasons to substantiate 
this view. Stutzer has not fulfilled his promise of more detailed 
treatment. Rauchenstein” and Fuhr” ‘considered it genuine 
and a Sevrepodoyia. 

Gilde,” after a careful examination of the speech, came to 
the conclusion that it was the real accusation, and that it has 
come down to us intact. He admitted, however, that there 
might be some reasonable objection to the form of the narra- 
tive, which is very brief (2-5) and interspersed with accusa- 
tions. Schomann’s idea he rejected because the reading of 
ἀντιγραφαί before the trial dispensed with the necessity for ex- 

1222; 238, “ Lysiae esse potest”. °8, “Sine dubio germana”’. 

ae 0a, ΜΟΥ, “1c, 65, thesis 3. 


“531, n. 1; 564, n. 1, he stated his inability to see what cogent reasons 
led Harpocration to rejection. “II, 61. “ibid. “op. cit. 


84 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


treme definiteness and detail in the accusation. The speech, he 
thought, cannot be a δευτερολογία, because there is no trace of a 
speech preceding it, and because anticipation and refutation of 
the accusation that Nicomachus will bring against the speaker 
(17-19) points to his being the main accuser. His argument 
from 7 is, as Blass ™ pointed out, based on a misinterpretation 
of the passage. 

F. Schultze,” while agreeing with Gilde that the possibility 
that XXX is a δευτερολογία is virtually precluded, insisted that 
in any case this assumption would not avail to explain the 
obscurity. To condemn the speech as spurious seemed to him 
no better expedient, since in its present condition it could not 
have been delivered in court. Therefore he concluded that it 
must be an epitome, but admitted that the epitomizer worked 
over only the first part of a genuinely Lysianic speech. 

I have already spoken of the impossibility of proving that 
any one of these speeches is an epitome. In reference to XXX, 
the assumption that it is an epitome is particularly ill-founded. 
Why should an epitomizer suddenly weary of his task, and copy 
out a great part of his original without change? Is it not 
more likely that he would, in such a case, indicate in the broadest 
outline the substance of the speech? The Lysianic corpus, 
moreover, does not show a desire on the part of compilers to 
include every scrap of Lysias available; the lists of works 
attributed to Lysias rather indicate selection. Blass in refer- 
ence to Schultze’s conclusion wrote, ‘‘ Das verfehlteste Aus- 
kunftsmittel ist, die tiberlieferte Rede fur eine Epitome zu 
erklaren ”’. 

Sittl,” though he pointed out that in XXX we have the only 
example of a “Kapitalprozess” in which the judges are 
addressed as ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, did not on this account question 
the genuineness of the speech. He agreed with Blass that by 
the assumption that it is a δευτερολογία all difficulties are re- 
moved. Blass furthermore found the parallels between XXX 


466, n. 5.  ” De Lysiae oratione trigesima, Berlin, 1883. 
4 Ye 1: 162 Γ᾿ 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 85 


and XXVII significant of identity of authorship, though he had 
refused to assign any such import to the parallels between 
XXX and XIV. 

Sachse” rejected the possibility that XXX could be either 
an epitome or a δευτερολογία. The confusion and obscurity in 
the charges brought against Nicomachus convinced him that 
the speech could not have been a success in court; therefore he 
adopted Schomann’s idea that it was never delivered, and, more- 
over, declared it to be spurious. 

This conclusion was opposed, and the arguments, in part, 
refuted by Albrecht,” who had already abandoned his theory 
that XXX is an epitome, and come to the conclusion that it is 
genuine, though considerably mutilated.“ Nowack” also felt 
the inadequacy of Sachse’s arguments, especially in considera- 
tion of the genuinely Lysianic diction.” Yet he did not decide 
to accept the speech unconditionally, and so we read as his 
ultimatum, “authentiam teneo, quamquam eam extra omnem 
dubitationem non positam esse concedo”. Herwerden”™ ac- 
cepted XXX as genuine, as did also Thalheim,” who agreed 
with Hamaker that the first part of the speech has been lost. 

The main objection to this speech has been the so-called 
obscurity and confusion in the first part, that is, in the accusa- 
tions brought against Nicomachus. The justice of these accusa- 
tions may be doubted, but difficulties in interpretation arise only 
from attempts to insist upon conformity with what would be 
suitable for the conviction of a defendant in court. That 
Nicomachus was a well-known figure in Athens may be assumed 
from the mention of him in Aristophanes, Frogs 1505. That 
the class of ὑπογραμματεῖς was held in contempt may be deduced 
from Frogs 1084, (reading troypapparéwv as one word, as do 
most modern editors following Bergk’s suggestion”). Unques- 
tionably his maladministration was generally known, if not 


3 Uber die dreissigste Rede des Lysias, Posen, 1886; Bursian, 94 f. 
*Zeits. f. Gymn. XLII (1888), 213 ff. 

“ Zeits. f. Gymn. XX XVII (1883). “τοῦ. ; 7 

* Investigated in detail by Schultze, 37 ff. “op. cit. ™XLVIII. 
# ep, ad Schillerum, in Schiller’s ed. of Andocides, 146 ff. 


86 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


generally discussed. Lysias then had no need to do more than 
recall to the Athenians their knowledge of Nicomachus. The 
neglect of the amnesty decree which is displayed in the refer- 
ences to events that took place immediately after the administra- 
tion of the Four Hundred points also to the unfitness of the 
speech for delivery. There is no narrative, because there is noth- 
ing in the facts to afford suitable opportunity for one, and 
Lysias probably kept to the facts, though unquestionably to his 
own version. The anticipation of Nicomachus’ attacks upon the 
speaker serves, in each case, merely as a framework upon which 
to build a similar accusation against Nicomachus himself. The 
speaker then falls into invective, first against Nicomachus 
personally, and here we find a typically Lysianic passage of 
rhetorical questions and answers (26, 27); then against ὑπο- 
γραμματεῖς as a class ; he ends with animadversions against those 
who will defend Nicomachus. 

I should, therefore, without questioning the genuineness of 
XXX, maintain the view first held by Schomann that it was 
written as a demonstration against Nicomachus ; that, although 
it was couched in the form of a speech, it was never intended 
for delivery in court. Assuming this, we are not confronted 
with the necessity of determining the exact dicanic status of the 
speech, which has been for scholars a serious difficulty. 


XXXI. 


XXXI, κατὰ Φίλωνος, estimated already by Dobree’* as “ cras- 
siore filo ”, was first regarded with suspicion by Scheibe, owing 
to the assonance in 26 and 32, the commonplaces in 6 and 11, 
the antitheses in 28. Most scholars, even though they admit 
that these peculiarities are a variation from the Lysianic norm, 


193. 
372. The question of spuriousness is not raised in his edition. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 87 


yet consider them insufficient proof of spuriousness; so Rau- 
chenstein,’ Frohberger,’ Blass,’ Huss." In the same year as 
Scheibe, Halbertsma* spoke of the speech as scarcely worthy 
of Lysias, because of the “ argumentorum paucitas, ratiocina- 
tium rhetoricum moles, pueriles verborum lusus et antithetica 
rhetorica”’. Schomann* thought it strange that Solon’s law, 
even if it was at the time antiquated, should not have been cited. 
He remarked that Halbertsma might have used this as an argu- 
ment, but did not draw any final conclusion about the genuine- 
ness of XXXI. 

Francken’ thought the form, composition, and course of 
argument truly Lysianic, and rejected Scheibe’s strictures as 
containing no proof of spuriousness. Nevertheless, mainly on 
linguistic grounds, he believed that the speech has been to some 
extent worked over. His objections were answered, in part, by 
Kayser; what remains unaccounted for, such as the unique 
expression, ἔχθραν μεταπορευόμενος (2), is insufficient warrant for 
an assumption of redaction. Baur,” without attacking the 
genuinensss of XX XI, doubted if it was ever delivered in court, 
because of the slightness and fancifulness of the accusations 
against Philon. The argument from the mother’s will (20-24) 
seemed to Baur especially typical of an “ Ubungsrede ”. Sittl ” 
suggested that variations in 14 and 23 from the usual formulae 
for summoning witnesses might point to spuriousness, but as 
we have previously seen,” Sittl] overestimated the need for abso- 
lute uniformity in these formulae. Wagner“ expressed doubts 
of its genuineness, and remarked upon the extraordinarily 
large number of articular infinitives, eleven in thirty-four para- 
graphs. 

Nowack ™ classed this speech and the preceding one, κατὰ 
Νικομάχου, as “ dubiae”’; in addition to the non-Lysianic char- 


51, 130. ‘61. He rejected Francken’s theory of a late redaction. 
5.485. ‘op. cit; cf. Frohberger, Phil. Anz. II (1869), 290. 

*De Magis. prob. ap. Ath. Deventer, 1841, 31. "I, 588. 

* 230; 238, “ Lysiae, sed wapamerolnrac”. 333. ™ 423. 
™See under XIX, XXIII, XXVIII. ab * 107. 


Le) - 
152. 


88 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


acteristics observed by Scheibe and Frohberger, another con- 
sideration inclined him to consider it spurious: neither the 
amnesty decree of 403 nor Solon’s law insisting upon participa- 
tion in party strife is mentioned. Liubbert’s “ explanation of the 
first omission, and Liiders’” of the second, failed to satisfy 
Nowack. 

The simplest explanation, however, is that in an epideictic 
speech to which, as we have seen, the slightness of the argu- 
ment, essentially based upon πίστεις ἐκ τοῦ ἤθους, and the rhetori- 
cal ornament of XXXI point,” there is not the same necessity 
for mention of the amnesty and the law of Solon, that there 
would have been in a speech designed for use. Nowack’s argu- 
ments, therefore, suggest that it is a literary fiction, but do not 
prove spuriousness. 

Vogel * believed that XXXI is a late school exercise, and 
explained by this assumption the intangibility of the historical 
personages and the vagueness of the time relations. His other 
objections to the plays on words and the commonplaces, and to 
some constructions differing from Lysianic usage (among 
which the undesirable presence or absence of av may be due to 
the text tradition), are not sufficient to prove his point. Btichle ἢ 
also condemned the speech. He emphasized the vagueness and 
indefiniteness of the narrative of Philon’s neutrality at the time 
of the strife. The story of his robbing the old citizens seemed 
to Buchle “leblos”’. In the third narrative,—of his non-fulfil- 
ment of duties,—we hear nothing of Philon himself. Also there 
are objections to the “ Gliederung ” of XX XI and to the use of 
commonplaces, as well as to the failure to cite definite laws. 
All this, he admitted, does not argue against Lysianic author- 


* De amnestia anno CCCCIII a Chr. n. ab Atheniensibus decreta, 
Kiel, 1881, 91. He thought that Philon was excluded from the benefits 
of the amnesty, because he did not belong to either of the two parties 
concerned, but had committed crimes against the entire state. 

11, J. XCVII (1868), 54. His idea that the law was obsolete in 
Lysias’ time was confirmed by Rauchenstein, Fuhr, and Blass. 

* cf. Blass, 485, esp. n. 2. 

* op. cit.; Bursian, 96. ™op. cit.; Bursian, 95 f. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS &9 


ship. So that it is only upon the basis of individual peculiarities 
found by him in the speech, that he concluded that it lacked 
ethopoiia, and that rhetorical devices had been employed to 
excess. It is therefore “eine Ubungsrede, aber aus wirklich 
lysianischen Flecken meist nicht immer glucklich zusammen- 
gesetzt ”’. 

It is not true, in my opinion, that the speech lacks ethopoiia, 
though of course it is Philon, and not the speaker, who is cast 
into the foreground. The rhetorical figures are not in excess 
if the work is epideictic, so Biichle’s arguments serve rather to 
uphold this view than to disprove the genuineness of XXXI. 


XXXITI. 

The Olympiacus of Lysias is preserved, in part, by Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus, de Lysia 30, as an example of his epideictic 
manner. It is referred to, without question of its genuineness, 
by Pseudo-Plutarch, Hermogenes, and Harpocration.’ 

Scheibe in 1841 * advanced various arguments (later refuted 
by Blass*), in the belief that the fragment is spurious, but in 
his edition accepted it as genuine without question. Schafer‘ 
defended the date assigned by Diodorus, 388 B. C., against 
Grote’s attempt " to place the speech four years later. Never- 
theless he adopted one of Grote’s arguments, and insisted upon 
the impossibility of Lysias’ speaking of the Spartans in such 
words as are used in 7. He concluded therefore that the 
demonstration against Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily, at the Olym- 
pian festival came from Xenophon’s circle, though Lysias may 
have written the speech, and conjectured that the man who 
delivered it was Themistogenes of Syracuse, to whom Xeno- 
phon (Hell. III. 1. 2) ascribed his Anabasis. But it is not clear 


*See Holscher, 119f. 7473. 434. ᾿ 
*Philol. XVIII (1862), 188 ff. * TX, 201 ff. (and X, 306 ff.). 


go SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


why Lysias could not himself utter words that he could write. 
It is unlikely that an Olympiac speech would be local or sec- 
tional in any case. The speech was not that of a person in a 
private capacity ; the speaker was the mouthpiece of the com- 
munity.” Since the speech is a plea for peace, and no doubt the 
result of an earnest endeavour to secure it, how better could 
Lysias have proved his sincerity and that of the Athenians, 
than by a show of frank appreciation of Sparta? Perhaps 
Lysias had heard a rumor of the coming peace of Antalcidas, 
and was making a last appeal to bring Sparta over to the side of 
Greece against Persia as well as against Syracuse. 

There is no reason why we should not believe, on the unani- 
mous testimony of the ancients, that Lysias wrote and delivered 
the speech. 


* Not, however, in an official capacity. The fact that Lysias was a 
metic need not have interfered with the delivery of this speech, 


THE EROTICUS: 


The Eroticus in Plato’s Phaedrus, though scarcely within the 
province of this dissertation, deserves mention as having been 
twice in recent years included in editions of Lysias.’ Vahlen’s 
defence of it as genuinely Lysianic would seem to have turned 
the tide of criticism completely in that direction.” But Wein- 
stock,’ in a long and elaborate dissertation has taken once more 
the opposite, and to my mind correct point of view. 


*In the editions of Herwerden and Hude, as in Holmes’ Index 
Lysiacus, Bonn, 1805. 

*798, he overlooks the fact that Herwerden’s edition included the 
Eroticus (as well as that of Franz in 1831). 

% op. cit. To his list of defenders of Plato’s authorship may be added 
the following: Leutsch, Theses Sexaginta, 1833, 13; Stallbaum, Lysiaca 
ad illustrandas Phaedri Platonici origines; Mahaffy, 142; Baur, 71; 
Jowett, 553; to champions of Lysianic authorship:—Keil on Phaedrus 
234; Kiel on Athenaeus XI. 505 f.; Heindorf on Phaedrus, 187; Wytten- 
bach on Plut. Moralia, 340; Franz, περὲ Λυσίου τοῦ ῥήτορος, 15; (cf. De 
locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis, 3, n. 2, and his edi- 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS ΟΙ 


His first chapter is a detailed investigation into the language 
of the Eroticus, including rhetorical figures, rhythm, composi- 
tion and choice of words, and general style. His second 
chapter, dealing with the authorship of the Eroticus, attempts 
in the first instance to draw conclusions from the investigations 
in the preceding chapter. It appears * that in details, such as 
use and avoidance of figures, there is a strange consonance be- 
tween Lysias’ speeches and the Eroticus, though in the latter 
his brevity and clearness are lacking. The rhythm and a few 
words are not Lysianic. These discrepancies cannot, accord- 
ing to Weinstock, be entirely explained away by the nature of 
the subject treated, and the only possible conclusion is that 
Lysias is not the author. 

With the warning that resemblances to Lysias’ speeches can 
never prove his authorship of the Eroticus, since Plato, in writ- 
ing it, must have imitated his characteristic tricks of thought 
and style, Weinstock examines the parallel passages cited by 
Vahlen and proves, by citation from other orators, that they 
are forms of expression common to all Attic oratory. The 
repeated occurrence of rhetorical formulae used by Lysias is 
the result of conscious imitation, and as we should expect it is 
the imitator, not the original author, who out-Herods Herod. It 
is even possible, he thinks, that Plato may have copied from 
an actual work of Lysias. (This, to me, seems improbable, 
but is in no case of any consequence for the argument. ) 

As a result of his stylistic investigation, Vahlen concluded 
only that Lysias might have been the author.” Weinstock 








tion, 349 f., in which the Eroticus is included, 249 ff.) ; Vater, N. J. 
Suppl. IX (1843), 176; Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of 
Socrates, II, 254 ff.; Thompson, op. cit.; Eckert, op. cit., 14 ff.; Pluntke, 
Plato’s Urteil iiber Isocrates, 1871, 8 f.; Steinhart, Platons Leben, Leip- 
zig, 1873, 179 (retracting his statement made in his praef. ad H. Miiller’s 
German version of Plato, IV, Leipzig, 1854, cited by Weinstock, 34) ; 
Constantinides, ’A@nvaiov IV (1875), 1V 32 ff.; Jebb, 305 ff.; Weineck, 
20 f.; Teichmiiller, op. cit., passim; Sittl, 148; Bockh, Encyclopadie 
der Philologie, 212 f.; Nowack, 100; Herwerden and Hude, who include 
the Eroticus in their editions. To the list of neutral scholars may be 
added :—Riickert, on Plato Symp., 252; Van Heusde, Init. phil. Plat. I, 
101. * 33. * 808 f., though he speaks less guardedly in the preface. 


92 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 

proves, as he thinks, that Vahlen’s whole argument is “ vana 
atque irrita”’, by pointing out words and constructions, which 
are not Lysianic, but in Platonic usage. Of the words which he 
singles out as not occurring in Lysias, one, ὑπόλογος, occurs in 
IV which he brackets, another in VIII, which he with most 
scholars, rejects. As he suggests, the non-occurrence of words 
may be due to chance, and it is impossible to draw valid con- 
clusions from the small proportion of Lysias’ work that has 
survived, especially since his ἐρωτικοὶ λόγοι have all been lost. 
No doubt they differed considerably from his dicanic speeches 
(whether or not these latter were written for actual use in 
court). To a certain extent, choice and use of words and 
phrases are determined by the genre of the work.’ Nor is the 
appearance of certain Platonic, but apparently not Lysianic con- 
structions conclusive ; the element of chance must be reckoned 
with. From an examination of the rhythm, it appears that the 
Eroticus resembles more closely Socrates’ first speech in the 
Phaedrus than the Olympiacus. Here again on this debatable 
ground of rhythm, it seems as if genre might be a determining 
factor. In my opinion therefore no decisive conclusions can be 
drawn from these facts, though they point to what I hold to be 
the correct view. 

According to Weinstock, Plato imitated Lysias as closely as 
possible; the Eroticus is a “ verissima atque simillima veri 
imago orationum Lysiacarum”’. At the same time, it is “ luce 
clarius ” that the Eroticus was written not by Lysias, but by 
Plato. Philologians are too clever to be deceived by Plato, but 
“quicumque integro liberoque animo legerint oratiunculam, 
Eroticum esse vere Lysiacum certe iudicabunt ”. Are we to 
take it that Plato wrote for philologians? Or to deceive in- 
genuous readers? Has Vahlen the unprejudiced mind, and is 
Weinstock the philologian? It seems to me that Plato could 
not seriously have intended his readers to believe that the 


* This explains satisfactorily the non-occurrence in what remains of 
Lysias of poetic and erotic words and phrases, such as νοσεῖν, used of 
the mind, θεραπεύων ἡδονήν, ὥρα, cf. Weinstock, 48 f. 


WT THE LIBRARY 
UNIVE! SITY OF CALIFORNIA 
LOS ANGELES 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 93 


Eroticus was Lysianic, unless it had already been published 
under Lysias’ name. In that case, the Phaedrus is a literary 
book review. But unquestionably he intended that his readers 
should understand that the Eroticus is a subtle Platonic version 
of Lysias’ manner,—almost a Lysianic inversion of the manner. 
The reading public would detect precisely where groping philo- 
logians fail, the element of caricature. 

Weinstock then turns to the Phaedrus itself, to see what con- 
clusions can be drawn about the authorship of the Eroticus.’ 
The word “parody” so frankly applied to the Eroticus by 
Thiele,” seems to have aroused Vahlen’s indignation and in- 
spired his article, and here, at least, Weinstock agrees with 
him that it could not have been a parody. These two scholars, 
however, seem to interpret “parody” as a “grotesque mis- 
representation ”’, whereas Platonic parody is something at once 
more artistic and more subtle. To the “ parody ” idea, Wein- 
stock objects that, on this assumption, Lysias is subjected to a 
threefold criterion, first in the parody itself, then in Socrates’ 
first speech, and finally in Socrates’ detailed criticism of it. Now 
the parody would seem to me, besides being the chef d’oeuvre 
of the dialogue, a tacit suggestion of the following criticism, 
which is, justly for Plato’s purpose, of three kinds :—first, of the 
treatment of the subject (Socrates’ first speech) ; second, of 
the choice of subject (Socrates’ second) ; finally, of the details 
of composition, of the rhetoric (in the second part of the 
dialogue). Weinstock’s plea that Plato thought too highly of 
Lysias to parody him, may be good sentimentalism, but is poor 
psychology. In the remainder of this section, he adequately 
refutes Vahlen’s arguments drawn from the references within 
the dialogue to the Eroticus as being Lysias’ speech, by pointing 
out that these were the only possible words in which reference 
could be made to it.’ He justifies the detailed criticism in the 


7 51 ff. *Hermes XXXVI (1901), 268, n. 1. 

*The same argument annuls the testimony of the ancients, among 
whom we have repeated references to it as Δυσίου λόγος. Weinstock, 
67, has dealt satisfactorily with the only troublesome reference, that of 
Hermias. 


94 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 


latter part of the Phaedrus by insisting that the Eroticus is not 
a parody. He might better have justified it by acknowledging 
that the justness of the criticism is not impaired by the fact 
that its immediate object is only an imitation of Lysias, because 
its ultimate object is Lysias’ epideictic work as a whole,— 
perhaps even, all writing of epideixis, in the narrower sense of 
the word, by rhetoricians or sophists. It must finally be kept in 
mind that the Phaedrus is, par excellence, a piece of literature, 
and not strictly accurate, objective criticism, and that the ele- 
ment of humour was less readily overlooked and underestimated 
by contemporaries than by the more meticulous scholars of 
to-day. 

In the third section Weinstock grants to Vahlen that no con- 
clusions can be drawn from comparison with the Protagoras 
and the Symposium, but points out at the same time that 
Norden’s " argument from the principle of unity must prove, 
at first sight, the authorship of Plato. 

The third chapter deals with the place of the Eroticus in the 
composition of the dialogue; the first part, with the genre of 
the piece; the second, with Plato’s judgment upon it. The 
Eroticus is a παίγνιον, a “ scholastica exercitatio sive declamatio, 
quales Lysias discipulis proponere solebat in exemplum ad 
recitandum”’. Plato’s judgment of it is justifiable. 

On the whole, therefore, Weinstock has done little to prove 
his conclusion, though it is, to my mind, the correct one. His 
compromise that it is not a parody only leads him into extraor- 
dinary contradictions.” The argument of literary unity ad- 
vanced by Norden, Plato’s general manner of work, the improb- 
ability that the work of one author should be quoted at such 
length in what is, ipso facto, a work of art,—these are the 
strongest arguments against Lysias’ authorship. The answer 
to the question must be more or less subjective. 


S27] 
Or: ὶ { 

™So we read, 51, “ quicumque integro liberoque animo legerint ora- 
tiunculam, Eroticum esse vere Lysiacum certe iudicabunt ye and 67, 
“antiquitus nemo in hanc potuit incidere sententiam Eroticum esse 
Lysiae ”. 


SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 95 


CONCLUSION. 


From the foregoing examination of the causes that led 
scholars to reject the speeches under consideration, it is seen 
that the radical treatment of Lysias’ work is not justifiable. 
The Lysianic corpus is the result of continued exclusion of 
supposedly spurious work. There is no contemporary evidence 
that Lysias wrote speeches for clients to deliver in court. The 
arguments for and against the genuineness of speeches, of 
which the authenticity has been questioned, rest on peculiarities 
in choice of words and syntax, and on suitability for actual 
delivery in court. These arguments should not be used for 
rejection, in a case where a dramatic and ironic master of 
ethopoiia is concerned, where the composer is simply a literary 
man, and at that not an Athenian nor a lifelong resident of 
Athens. 

Therefore the balance of evidence is in favour of the genuine- 
ness of any speech of Lysias preserved, and any investigation 
of the work of Lysias must proceed on that assumption, and, if 
necessary, the use of what is to-day considered solecistic in 
classical Greek must be recognized as legitimate in passages that 
do not otherwise call for emendation. 

The case of Lysias, if my view be correct, justifies a recon- 
sideration of the question of the purely epideictic nature of the 
work of the other canonical orators. 


MITA: 


I, Angela Charlotte Darkow, was born in Vienna, Austria, 
on November 15, 1889. My father is Dr. Martin Darkow ; my 
mother, Flora Singer Darkow. I was prepared for college in 
the Philadelphia High School for Girls. In 1911 I received 
the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Bryn Mawr College, in 
1912, that of Master of Arts. 

I spent three years doing graduate work in the departments 
of Greek and Sanskrit at Bryn Mawr, as scholar in Greek 
1911-12, and as fellow in that department 1912-14. To Dr. A. E. 
Welden and to Dr. Roland Kent of the University of Pennsyl- 
vania, 1 am indebted for instruction and encouragement in my 
work in Sanskrit and Comparative Philology. Dr. Wright has 
kindly criticised my dissertation and assisted me in all my work. 
I am deeply indebted to Professor Sanders, at whose instigation 
I began my work in Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, 
through whose inspiration and assistance I have continued my 
work in Greek, without whose encouragement and aid I could 
not have written this dissertation. I wish to take this oppor- 
tunity to express my gratitude and sense of obligation to these 
professors and to the faculty of Bryn Mawr College. 

May, 1914. 





: 


ἃ 
if 





ihe ee 









a ¥ 
woh. 


Form L-9% 
25m—-10,°41(2491) 





LL 


58 00930 468! 


UC SOUTHERN A 


1 1 





ws νυ ὁ «θεν Goh Hee meget median ohewel Ache tte .b Τῶν. polit ἡ τἀὐτοτλμφ νόῳ 02k Arhrweteg 
re Oe Oe Ceres erh-peaene Sivineteneaveraaynerymyrlh ado e Len ΉΤ ΝΣ δον, ὁ Φ τα oad σαν co φυφοῦ (φοφιδοὺ mee Meme Hoke Srarerbastactioaat 
,»Ὁ A Gk το, ἡ Rebeeeerneh Ὁ webcam net ME Sy ἐν τ -wavirn teraet Menonttanoaratwehoaabommerarett Paya ιν es pyr peracartemya ath-arecetacs TAs ἅν 
νὰ μεϑμοφούφφιφονεφιψηννν newer ne ete eee Θιφοα HOt Ht oF opel «ἡ τι ee patheerecaremoeeedtesneereeterian precataceldceroracacere) Mreeontd sO euebrmeOstieke Usih ἡ πα τον τών: 
Sra dicen ars ιν του ee EE Leh epee serene wma teem RI Ἂς 


eve error Pater steel Soe δόφυθιφόψος hot 66.144 104054, ecelvopsbstce sata: waters entoeas peace ate ae ate 

ον μου σῶς Θοῦνφο ἔνον, ῥα δηλ beneheeciasarnte eee" a TMP svonmy ren Derk -adhomr Nevins POPPI rrr Peed Dye yPN ove φ Pye thre tations ὁ 4 . 
soo τους τον δ δα το δτο να Ν δα ουττα ἀετοῦ ον atta eT ΟΣ νυ serene τὸ αν ένα ναθ θθς ον Mose vaney tcverototaoiaecsaet Onde Olted, dehedegeiaded ΔΑ ΤΑΣ ἡ νυν Gres ἘΠΕ 
m~ ς dare. Woe 

: , 


rapsdcapedaicen betes piateealatnre tetra treet ere henshpesrerbed 5 ἔδομεν, ἐσύ 86-018 1) 
ob heverPunsbyer tua iemeseet te Teper any aa podem ues Beier tones pnb φῳν ἡ ΤΗΣ ἐφ 

νϑσα σαν τ να, «τὰ eee hi teh ieee ποῦν ἘΠ anaes eee oc teke eke eee 8 0 Be 

wirena havin tpbara nuova epetens ee 


Wi ob@rdeones-bhens- edad hememeerhesirort. ΜΟΥ μι νον μον κω eae Hib emehen anes 
As Aron p συ ὁοδοῦνφιφοας 
RebeGlaeded -trOed Senra en am eeereete * ss 


yrs 


2 espeecMemenesshenehemeneesehior δὰ σι ψο αν δ γὴν φῳν δ ανφη φυρυν Ὑδν ὦ ἡ cate να ΟΡ ΉΥ Κα 
pebananebebatearenena net Ὑνυϑυϑυ Δι: ΗΝ sowed yee 


shoes τὶ 
Yepryewesen ep ott bap, Bee ERE VSM, aire bg 

eek at . 3 Janay 

pat Srtnk-Oa4 


‘ Ἔν ταδν δαϑά σοισο. δὲ ὡς ς ὑψλν etek ren eey 
OesHoysiewomeni HE Ρενουφ φύθάδούφῷ: ον ) 
- ἐπα ἀπ τ ΜΈ μφοφονονεφ οί, Mrerevrsertagtyeeer cheariertat 
τα - > 4berers, . Ned Peers ek AG Vet et οὐ -ἀὐότο, 
Sqrseeats Mesceres Sinead Ln my ye ἐλοφοδυουνθνν ον 
Soerecataceent or ; pean ots bein dope Revet sO6es PROT ee’ πνν θεόν φύοδρία ὙΡΡ ΣΎ ρλδν δὴ υγφὰ ἐῳ 
sdchevevosstogetei recs t saree ies Soh) + bees Hbratusy Mohr eth νον δα ἀν Φείσα. δον τῳ ἄγω κα σιν εν 
* SP} wransiat oye > pega curioerareneg ergs: debtatateters gro mlatanstiny iets: 
iuatodstombectchine henna ἵει sre Rewer Pewee tt Stee dedenensy ὁ ἐφενεριφοσῳ ψίφυς pase: pao emreatee borat δῆσον 
wre Sree al eee arnt rhnknlby Samet ἐψυφοῤολοϑυνορος αν ΣΧ ΝΣ 
5 ἀρ MeV NSS Minhnarorarade tec. ΣΥΝ ebstriethatetrl abe deneteteliaqeens-Geeeurareel φταδη ήταν, Esme pe taell- fot oy 
estes ἘΣ ΕΣ ΡΎΠΟΝ. ραν ΦοΣ το φυν Στὴν 
~wevedanes sun δυὸ ονο φοαδύ» ὦ. ς ᾿ 


pith ἐδάνοινοφθδο δ Calutaememem Δ erate th Ὑ δ  ϑεὐσφνάσοςφεν: 

: . . wet δωδάνεν λάλον, δὰ ον, τ tad ΣΟ ΝΑ δ he: blot rt On pemediewdiiare 410 ν 
δον ον ξ οϑυφόφοοίθοδο φούοφοφσαι satay We ete. σἀλολνανῦ ἐν - ᾿ 

ἘΣ Σ λον τυ ον ohre ae ΣΑΤΟ sania 


” 
Se e-taltemee sey P pyres) + pare est 3s ΧΩ 
mS a RES MARES Mat teh een wrk seers 
PA GETS Nine par eote Greet, ΣΟ eee tees pot 
ον ον δῷ κων απο Ge oe WAS Ae erate peehan my 
Sosbsedtsrae 


Meh deh adsenate δὴ 4 bibed) να ῥΆ lok Pee ber SA ed 
ans eooeyareeaseeobrrrae tens . ate tseetcaee stata rencetazeceeiess 
Φιιφοφιδοθφινο.ς. HL teers + roleel ery Helier see opr: pens Prchstet ν by. 
paabeseotescsabeaees Wri Mh en τυ συ tea mer bs Nohedeaehatioge teh ἴ cores neat peice ΡΟ ΓΟ, 
soebateneess : ᾿ tebe pee thawaass nie beta hea? [si i 
: ᾽ ey oteNsseneas the ΟΣ 
- ἀφνιμεσφογεῶρῃ Maret Wenge. 


; teas helen 
aaNet Ihe Be Swaletre CMa Ope 
+ κ᾿ 


5. i et hedebe the 
ΕΑ κατα τεῦς sates ΡΟ ΤΉΝ 
owen @et st spn i } δ δ Ἰαἰ ἡ γῇ 


τόν δ, weap ὦ τω Ὁ ΓΝ 
ΟΣ ΩΣ 


ΨΩ 
shew 


















































He the Dehe me ἔτος ἜΗΝ, ἣν We REM 8/4) τ ἐν " Writes  βεϑούν, ο 
; seinen tebe eh ar ταν DR ἔρυμα εν αν α x Σ 
ϑτ σε σὴν <A cbs Hate βιφεδιδν τὐ νον ier ἘΠΕῚ r UV et avin eis AT ND move 
ΟΝ ; ΠΥ iit γλϑασὰν ἀὐό φὰν Why Dene ante betes eaiutaiae bat mie ‘ pee 
Chr sal is ἡρε γ τ, ΟΜΝ Pris i Dv Phapniisels Winch Sra Aa ah a han ara ιν δυλεδιὶ 
σαννρόννες δὲ eRe GEG He miEE hw ες hol the boned ἐφτατ μεθ. ἢ, ae etd ἡ αὶ. ως fis ie οὐ US Agate Wet oy Nae δὴ pS Ai OS Pe 
sah Hod Ahab Oo e ol eM enhetetes he fiehewednine ΜΉΝ ν᾿ uve te ae Ν “ ites, ἣν 
ἀφρφεὶ δέν μὲ MADEN ERM Bees bet * HREU Ee doe Hattie bee qeted erik vented ve ribet’ on Ot ems HHO) μέρος ihe 
UP esnvuek tareb tee a ὃ Fbrdrae ee ὑφρόνονόνι Χο ν he 
μ, m4 teincbeeratebers Hi hEsrsieelae ge eaprdiets fe dete 
δτρακελε τ᾽ on. WHEW BER ἀγοδλ φ τ τῆλ med hogeheete © Moonee δ αν ἀν νὰ 
δ ἐδ θ᾽ ah stoeemene AT DIOR EMTS Itone te gr bfer 4 


hehe Gelee. 


ΟΣ 


* ΣΎ ΤῊ 
ΟΣ ΜΥΟΥΝ it oe 






Sets 
Phe Go οὐ φοῤσουουι ot τὰ ook : porary τῷ 
ΜΝ PROS φονε με εί τὴν Hee hel theh Ore “τὸ Orde debris 
Ro aeeebu Mer 6 eine 


on £14: deGapraed ogeeene 
Sots ry ar 























1G. vahewaneerngs οὐ δεν lf) tale βέϑ ν᾿ ' De Aadek « A, Waren 
φαρόφος, δὴ ν. wey Seesesenshapshsore ν ¢ ᾿ aA SAD a8 8 oe ee ely 4 \ ‘ Ly 
ϑοφ ϑοόδοσένφοιο rs ΩΝ EG Bi the fi eka Rating ae Ma Hhedbe δὴ 0164 Pedi Be S61 . : wt oe Cis 
eacereneeat est ΑΝ ΓΜ ¢ ΠΝ ἢ 2) thay) ) a) 
Reseneers mee MO ιξ με φιλψερ θὰ Crm beeinar tery teers caregs disease te 
pemes "τῷ ΝΗ ΩΝ δὲ δύδεῳ τῇ «ἣν feb 
Peete Pty ΟΝ 













Sti mitra aed: ἐν Od : het 
wetcecebeteseentetritl, ΜΉΝ  ΟΔῚ 
aretha eer e@otes * dese ; 
eh ometredy ἄσφοῦ τα νἐφιγῳ τον οὐν kee: beh hichee thef si bone geies 
πρλσν σεται λα, ees 9 φύφε δὲ END NAPUS ET ψεν (itt δοῤγεγὸ 
NT bape the 
bebete net 






᾿ Reo a eer 

ee δι ΚΝ οι . δε τῷ bear 
ΟΝ r hone εἰς ‘ 

a Wepemel ie, 5 CPiskorstst er eran 








Use σάν ον τῶν 
the fenee δι 
¢.statie 

















Shy ots 
ἀφ θὲ dive en 
Letters 
ΠΝ 
Vrbewonee nee. 
r 
wep itetiati-qisteae 
abatara tt sal 3 
Oa τη δὴ ὑπ σι τητος ractere ὅρος trys 
AERO cSt ROSH: ψυθας ἐν opehioorh weds τε κτλ ly ount 
φοθοφοφονοσο tree Yel ΤῊΣ ‘Wore 


Hee 


Here Ornish Memetirae ae 
etal eyelets 
vrde tan τάς 
ΠΥ 
He behidbnen ei eds | Hef ERs hele pa 
Chea Corte δὲ σῆς Caney wees, 
$ 06g nde 


e-bdews acer 


to Ot 
ey) 
She Fut one. 
ΤΉ ef 
φισφος ὁῷ rr: 


Ὁ "ὁ 
φ φεσεια, 
" bs ον de 
PG εἰ ρει ἡ 6440 Wake 
ἀδετοτελψεύνανα 
sets 
- ΦΧ Lb 
OE PS ONE δον lek. ἃ στὸ bay Urano geure. Hs hates eds 


retin vee bres defi qe- es bes 
δ obs Ardy ἀνφιύνῶν 
ἐδ ξο balheoters ove) 














aceseras, 


# 


oe 





a ers ἡ ety tegeeestaty 
PERE GPO ts deen s pos a bulb ean 
Ora τα. tied 

ῳϑέ φρο οἱ a Φ 2 S 
shane et Soran {cs pe Pa ; 






iy 

































ᾧ 
+ 
AFG Mi reed of-08 rei 








oe 
ἀσενδέ εὐσε asker 





9 iad oe 
EL epee 
OH στο ιν κάνε oe. 


48 habe Oe eae Roars 
Aber) taba bee 


i 





εὖ κῶν μος ti 
ἀξ ϑεσφ. Pe πε ϑερα ἂν 












Wehr oes νερὸ 







F233. 
2 
eee 


τ 
εἰ 





τ» yaad νὴ. 
ἀὐε κε ηνι φῦ ες ἧς 





Ὁ ὈΝΝΚΟΧΟΩΝΣ 

co er δὲ Lae 

Pacha dbieh ἐξῖν Shel Orhan mee 
bsingtGeaieepradice μποῦν 
tiie setet 





Lt ttre hades 





ae 


+: 





thie Gots R= he 


aw heeeqege AS ee dee 


WHOA ey week ede. 
e160 δύνα 


ἐξ 





σὴ σφ φυσῶν δε οθ ἀμ ὁ er 











eet ahs 4 é 
ΝΥΝ ri 


deere sergrensatye acts 


μὲ H » ἷ de (“κὸν Bate Qe pee 
Sle Reh rye rere mb M ᾿ 
τ ον lati tititmesatigs ; 


4 ᾿ ety tear et tt te ἡ hannrhe 
Peo ae ἢ ὃ 
Hohe wes, ~ ear 


sepet ν 
bePeoitwinbenin phos de oho ΟΝ ΤῊ 
\* « Hh Oe ORE FEED © ous pew + ve “wr TM i 
WBE wre bid Siero sabes ΠΣ aie ete 
tedioposseuastbes sarong - 


























eae ay 
£7 Ue 
τ 






ν δ». Ws Lie ed, 












ΕΟ Υ τὰ τ ferges 
ΔΆΝ WEE eH A Loe: Bee Beg ot oh} 
IF OMe A OOF Oy bn 8 & «τῳ οὶ 
paper tery mney rey. eer) Cee 

pre rereras 










parecer) 
Pupetere i or 
aebeo te Rea ae τὴν 
a 


Uetege ys yee 
dere OE Gs SEE BH 4 hoe obese) 404 





















HOW Ay Bre WAH Gewecke eT ‘ Vasbrhoh katte taken ΣΟ 
ὁ δε κε μας “ὦ ν᾽ 





ie τ rarer κοὐ 
ἀφ σφ ᾿ 


ert φυφας 


ΡΟ ἋΣ 
* 6° SBIOE Mn τῷ ὁ φν ἀμφ OTH δ μι φεοψ 
ΟΝ ΧΟ ΝΌΟΝ 
ὑπ ϑι ὁ ἀνθ, δόσιῷ ἀνδεείφιῳ honk ok σεν ν᾿ eT τρί σον μένος 
ΟΣ ΧΆ ace se 
viveindeta dhdetiebedoidolk oe att 
Φ'ου οὐκ, ἐν ψοάρι 4 ὡτα eee iin 
ΡΥ ΟΝ 
are, 









Heart ὦ 
ar ries en eae ey 
εν τῳ σδάφιῳ & 
OH 08” Gewese ple ove 
orn 
We tte Φ ὦ WES HA Gomme tet aritor el dir Ai Ped wg re dy 
ἐν ὅθε οῳνῳ τῷ erkttel Dhak RT ee ee re eT ees 
Peer σα ποῖα SE enh ,ὠϑόμιφύςιφ φις υὐνώνο τα αὐνιϊῳ κα τη δε noes τὼ ὧ ἡλάρψν bd 
lesore Gre na ene " Sven) οι ἀκ διλύφο Bing, λρτήνήεφε w= &- 4-828 -6:e ee 4 
Hott Hote d- medi ὁ HirQues beg ehh ee ib ἀ δ: gopher tle: Fett! tow 




















































' 4 ᾿ 
Ν ΟΜ etm ‘ ῥ 
WA WM Wik συ δτῷ ἀτίλω μον ὦ ὙΛΟΣΚ tind ὁ, δὶ ἀ erat φῶ ἡ τώ ALK Ry 
᾿ Olds as σφυρὰ ΟΥ̓ pre eer oe er bree ve bra nee & bal by ΤῊΝ SAR eb φούρονῳ. 
Ὧν δ de φόνῳ δ᾽ οὐδεν Orr ὁ Paphon Katty Ihache'ry Serer wrod 9 ty tophoate ΩΡ inp Wipes bay τ tee ΟΝ 
eee εν τῳ, rarer ἀρφι ΑΨΎΡΑΝ Hh he deed Reid oe be eee tas κ΄ ὦ dew nh 7 Leeb yor ALDI Peay eS ΨΎΡΛΟΝ 
4 Φοφαυ whe etna ere Ὁ’ δ᾽ ὦ τομῷν δι bbe ty om 3 














wr δ ἐν ἢ 4 δ τὰ ere ἡ νυ 

wry b ermee Aras +4 rrr) are λα WES Myre Weave Se Phd 

ee ker ae , 8 + ee tho Girt J 
oh A pen-e' eh anit 





























Hop efi ies ΡΟΣ 
ne Oa ee ΠΝ 

GM are eared We gal ΟΣ ΜΝ i Pabla rer ep ae yry \ 

φέν ὀράμϑι ὦ φοφιι ἡ, τό λῶς Her Tat en RL Pehl ok ear 


bee a wee gs ot 





rire ea meteor tr tee 
arabe Be Ole ae trie Ok a FL era ered 









wire tom ote) 












γ᾽ δ᾽ Φ ἐν ἡ rye tet 
FSH Be φ  ν4 τω δι 4.9. k τ μι Oe Fede δὼ δι νἀ he φησ ν ὅτ λον 
- φῶτα dois eerh ie armacd- Sree Wk 4:Asb-mcatheg.t ‘ veth-b le ον μονα ϑῳ 
Gide bewnardaticae συνε αρα να γέγονα σὰν ΩΣ vi 
Oe Sore trs 


